Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. INHOFE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the regular order is the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the highway bill. This is one we are very much concerned about. I have said several times I am hoping Members will come to the floor and speak on the highway bill. I know the distinguished Senator from Illinois wants to be heard right now. Let me only make one comment. Earlier on I talked a little bit about the Energy bill. The distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts started off with a quote by the President that was not quite complete. What the President said was the Energy bill would have no immediate impact on gas prices but long-term gas prices will be affected by an energy bill. I made that very clear a few minutes ago when I talked about the fact we have been trying to get an energy bill since the 1980s. I don't say this in a partisan way because we tried to get an energy bill during the Reagan administration and the Carter administration before that, the first Bush administration, and the Clinton administration. We were unable to do it. It was not until this President came along and offered an energy bill or an energy policy for America. It is long in waiting. Obviously, supply and demand tells us that portion of energy that is generated by oil and gas is going to be cheaper if we are able to do it locally and do it in this country without depending upon foreign sources of oil. We know what happened in OPEC days back in the 1970s. We know we can be held hostage again. It is a very serious problem. But an energy bill should include all forms of energy. I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts, we should be concentrating also on technology, on renewables. Certainly I disagree with the Senator from Massachusetts when he says he wants clean coal technology and he wants to be able to utilize coal. It was the Democrats in the committee I chair who killed the Clear Skies--didn't kill it, but delayed it--Initiative of the President which would have the most dramatic reduction on pollutants, on NOx, SOx, and mercury pollution than any President has ever advocated in the history of America, a 70-percent reduction. To do this we had to continue to have clean coal technology. That is part of the bill, as are oil and gas and nuclear and renewables. We made an effort to do that and were unable to do it on a partisan line. If the Senator from Massachusetts is interested in having a bipartisan approach to the use of clean coal technology and to expand the use of coal, we need to look at all of the above, all of the forms of energy. I will join him in that program. The Senator from Illinois wants to be recognized as in morning business. Since I do want to get back to the highway bill, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois be recognized for 30 minutes as in morning business and then immediately following his 30 minutes, I be recognized for 30 minutes as in morning business, and then we would go back to the regular order. I encourage Members who are interested in the motion to proceed to the highway bill to come to the floor, to be heard, and so we can recognize them for that purpose. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 893, introduced earlier today.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of the transportation bill: Heideh Sahmoradi, Greg Murrill, Mitch Surrett, Rudy Kapichak, John Stoody, Kent Van Landuyt, James Gentry, and Elissa Konove.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the highway bill. Under the previous order, we will have up to 1 hour of debate prior to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed. The cloture vote will be at approximately 11:45 a.m., and that will be the first vote of tomorrow's session. It is my hope that cloture will be invoked and further that we would be able to move to the bill without using the full 30 hours of postcloture debate. Once on the bill, we will move forward with the amending process. Senators should expect additional rollcall votes during tomorrow's session. On behalf of the leader, I inform my colleagues we will have a busy week leading into next week's recess. In addition to the highway bill, we will act on the budget resolution conference report once it becomes available. There are a couple of important nominations expected to be reported out of the committee this week that we hope to act upon, as well. Rollcall votes are expected each day this week, and Senators are asked to plan their schedules accordingly.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I will deliver my third speech in 2 weeks on the issue of China's increasing global influence. In these past speeches I addressed alarming trends such as China's proliferation problem, the distressing potential that the EU may drop their Arms embargo, and other events that have obvious impact on our national security. In 2000, Congress established the bipartisan U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission to collect and provide Congress with authoritative information on how our relationship with China affects our economy and industrial base, the impact of China's military and weapons proliferation on our security, and the status of our national interests in Asia. I fear that the Commission's findings have largely been ignored. I will continue to draw America's attention to the issue until we address it. As China becomes increasingly interdependent with its Asian neighbors, it is presenting its economic rise as a win-win situation for its trade and investment partners. According to political economist Francis Fukuyama: Over the long run, [China] wants to organize East Asia in a way that puts them in the center of regional politics. The implications of this are disturbing. As the 2004 Commission report points out: . . . the United States' influence and vital long-term interests in Asia are being challenged by China's robust regional economic engagement and diplomacy, and that greater attention must be paid to U.S. relations in the region. The Commission recommends that the U.S. increase visibility in Asia through initiatives that demonstrate our commitment to regional security. One avenue for this is the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum--APEC. A careful look will show that China's regional outreach is at best inconsistent. It certainly has not offered win-win benefits to Taiwan or Hong Kong. As the tense situation in Taiwan continues to simmer, China's ongoing intimidation of this country seems to undermine the rosy picture they are trying to paint. A few weeks ago the Chinese Communist Party formalized a new stance on Taiwan. This is a total diversion from their old policy. The following was approved by the National Peoples Congress: If possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ nonpeaceful means and other necessary measure to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This represents a change from earlier ambiguous language that would have allowed China flexibility to consider other options should conflict arise. As it is, China has taken away its own alternatives. China has also backed itself into a troubling situation with its skyrocketing demand for oil; since my floor speeches in 1999 its oil imports have doubled, and last year alone surged upwards of 57 percent. Some analysts project China's oil needs will double again by 2010 and it will use up its reserves within 14 years. China's alarming need for oil has caused it to look around the world for new sources, sources that are often problematic states with security concerns for the United States. In Venezuela, anti-American President Hugo Chavez announced a $3 billion trade strategy with China, including provisions for oil and gas. This came on the heels of his statement, ``We have invaded the United States, [not with guns] but with our oil.'' Beijing recently signed a $70 billion oil/gas deal with Iran, from whom it receives 11 percent of its oil imports. Naturally, China has come out firmly against the U.N. Security Council holding Iran economically accountable for its nuclear program. Likewise, in Sudan, China seeks to defuse or delay any U.N. sanctions against Khartoum. It hardly seems coincidence that 4 percent of its oil imports come from that conflict stricken country, a supply that China seems ready to protect at all costs. Keep in mind we are talking about the same area in northern Uganda and southern Sudan where they have the terrorist attacks that have consistently gone out, where they abduct these young children, train them to be soldiers, instruct them to kill their parents, and if they do not do it, they cut their arms off, their lips off, and their ears off. That makes no difference to China. If it means 4 percent of its oil imports potential in the future, they are willing to do it. The United States and the European Union have sanctioned Zimbabwe, hoping to pressure its corrupt regime into reforms. China, on the other hand, has boosted aid and investment, working to blunt the sanctions. The sources China has used to meet its oil needs and increase its world standing are clearly questionable. The Commission makes an unpopular but straightforward observation: . . . [China's] pursuit of oil diplomacy may support objectives beyond just energy supply. Beijing's bilateral arrangements with oil-rich Middle Eastern states also helped create diplomatic and strategic alliances with countries that were hostile to the United States. For example, with U.S. interests precluded from entering Iran, China may hope to achieve a long-term competitive advantage relative to the United States. Over time, Beijing's relationship-building may counter U.S. power and enhance Beijing's ability to influence political and military outcomes. One of Beijing's stated goals is to reduce what it considers U.S. superpower dominance in favor of a multipolar global power structure in which China attains superpower status on par with the United States. And while the search for energy is not yet a zero-sum game, the way the U.S. and China acquire oil is strikingly different. James Caverly, of the U.S. Department of Energy states, ``The U.S. strategic framework makes certain that plenty of oil is available in the world market so that the price will remain low and the economy will benefit.'' China, in contrast, seeks to ``gain control of the oil at the source. Geopolitically, this could soon bring the United States and Chinese energy interests into conflict.'' I have a chart that shows the countries that China has been buying oil from. This is the most up-to date information available. What I would like to point out is how China is using whatever leverage it can to find new energy sources, particularly in Africa. If you add up these amounts, China is acquiring about one third of its oil from African countries like Angola, Sudan, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Libya. Other countries China has begun seeking oil from are Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Gabon, and Guinea. I have had occasion to go there. And any of these countries that you go to, you see that China is giving them everything they want. I have been traveling to Africa for many years. I just got back from a trip through Tanzania, Ethiopia and Uganda. Chinese influence is everywhere. I see conference centers and sports stadiums being constructed, donated by the Chinese. China has been expanding its influence throughout Africa with projects like this. The one thing I keep hearing is, ``The U.S. tells you what you need, but China gives you what you want.'' Has China suddenly become compassionate and generous? No. One thing consistent with all of these countries where they are building these stadiums, sports complexes, and arenas, if you go to them, is they are places that the Chinese are depending on for their oil in the future. I think the fact these countries have large oil and mineral deposits is the reason for their generosity. Last year, China spent nearly $10 billion on African oil. As I said, this is nearly one third of its total crude oil imports. To gain access to these resources, China shows no qualms about catering to some of the worst governments. The fact is that China is ignoring western sanctions and redrawing the usual geopolitical map to help it level whatever advantages the U.S. may have. The U.S.-China Comission--again, talking about the Commission that spent 4 years looking at this--has been doing an outstanding job in translating how recent these events affect our national security. Their observations in the 2004 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission report demand our attention. The Commission outlines how China's energy search has both economic and security concerns for the United States: China's rising energy demand has put added pressure on global petroleum supplies and prices. Indeed, the recent escalation in gasoline prices in the United States has been attributed, in part, to the impact of China's growing pressure on world oil supplies and the absence of any mechanism in place to counter this pressure and maintain stable prices for consumers . . . China's growing energy needs, linked to its rapidly expanding economy, are creating economic and security concerns for the United States. China's energy security policies are driving it into bilateral arrangements that undermine multilateral efforts to stabilize oil supplies and prices, and in some cases may involve dangerous weapons transfers. I plan on giving another speech highlighting the significance of these illegal weapons transfers, followed by a resolution to effect the Commission's recommendations. This is a critical issue and will become a greater threat as we continue to ignore it; I hope America is listening. I would like to say it goes far beyond that. When you have people like Chavez making statements that they would defeat America not with guns but with the economy, or with oil, we have a very serious problem. I was disturbed over the last few years with not just the nuclear capabilities that China has and is trading with other countries, such as North Korea and Iran, but also with their conventional weapons. It took a lot of courage back in 1998 for General John Jumper to stand up and say publicly that now the Russians have a better strike vehicle than we have in the United States--better than our F-15s and F-16s, speaking of the SU-30 and SU-31 series. Yet China purchased about 240 of these vehicles. It is not just their nuclear and economic capability in trading with countries that are potentially dangerous to the United States but also their nuclear and conventional base. I will look forward to delivering a floor speech on China.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will consider the nomination of John Negroponte to be Director of National Intelligence. Following that debate, the Senate will resume consideration of the emergency supplemental for the final two amendments. Therefore, Senators can expect a series of votes tomorrow on the two supplemental amendments, final passage, and the Negroponte nomination.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak up to 25 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, April 21, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the calendar: No. 69, John Negroponte to be Director of National Intelligence. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 4 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that the Democratic time be equally divided between Senators Rockefeller and Wyden; provided further that at the expiration or yielding back of that time the Senate proceed to a vote on confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate; provided further that immediately following the vote the President be notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I understand that there are eight bills at the desk that are due for a second reading. I ask unanimous consent that they be read for a second time, en bloc.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in order to place the bills on the Calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceeding en bloc.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 21. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and there then be a period for morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee and the second 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; provided that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the Negroponte nomination as provided under the previous order.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Edmundo Garcia said he had heard that the new Bush immigration plan, which would grant work visas to millions of illegal immigrants inside the United States and to others who can prove they have a job, was `amnesty,' and he wondered why he was arrested.'' He said he would try to cross [the border from Mexico to the U.S. through the Sonoran Desert] again in a few days. This quote from the New York Times on May 23, 2004, shows just how bad things have gotten since the administration's initial immigration policy proposal was announced. The New York Times article goes on to say: Apprehensions of crossers in the desert south of Tucson have jumped 60 percent over the previous year. Nearly 300,000 people were caught trying to enter the U.S. through the desert border since last October 1st (that's October 2003).'' It continues: After a four-year drop, apprehensions which the Border Patrol uses to measure human smuggling are up 30 percent over last year along the entire southern border, with over 660,000 people detained from October 1st through the end of April. There are an estimated 8 to 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, with about 1 million new illegal aliens coming into this country every year. Legal immigration is even at unprecedented levels about five times the traditional levels. We now have about 1.2 million legal immigrants coming into this country each year, as opposed to an average of about 250,000 legal immigrants before 1976. S. 359, the AgJOBS bill, could offer amnesty to at least 800,000 more illegal aliens, and if they all bring family members, which they would be eligible to do, it could be up to 3 million more, according to Numbers USA. I greatly respect my friend and colleague, the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and I understand he has many cosponsors for his bill, but I firmly believe S. 359 has some major flaws and is not the way to remedy our problem with illegal immigration. Even though there are certain criteria these illegal aliens must meet to qualify for temporary work status and eventual citizenship under this bill, it still rewards them by allowing them to stay in this country and work rather than penalizing them for breaking the law this is amnesty. I also agree with my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, who said in Tuesday's Congress Daily when asked about the supplemental bill H.R. 1268, said that he did not want it to ``be a magnet for other unrelated immigration proposals . . . regular order is the best way. . . .'' I agree with my colleague and think we should focus on the supplemental and debate immigration reform separately. Furthermore, in section 2, paragraph 7, the AgJOBS bill defines a workday as ``any day in which the individual is employed one or more hours in agriculture.'' In order for an alien to apply for temporary work status, section 101, subsection A, subparagraph A states that the aliens ``must establish that they have performed agricultural employment in the United States for at least 575 hours or 100 work days, whichever is less, during any 12 consecutive months. . . .'' So if a workday is defined as working at least 1 hour and the alien only has to work 100 work days in a year to qualify for temporary status under the AgJOBS bill, then illegal aliens only have to find some kind of agricultural work, and not necessarily be paid, for 100 hours, or merely 2 weeks, in a year in order to stay temporarily, while robbing Americans of these jobs. An article from May 18, 2004, by Frank Gaffney, Jr., from the Washington Times entitled ``Stealth Amnesty'' states that once an illegal alien has established lawful temporary residency, ``they can stay in the U.S. indefinitely while applying for permanent resident status.'' ``From there it is a matter of time before they can become citizens, so long as they work in the agricultural sector for 675 hours over the next 6 years.'' Furthermore, in referring to the REAL ID Act, which was attached to the supplemental in the House, and I believe is true reform, another article from the week of April 6, appeared in the Washington Times stating: . . . REAL ID is a bill that will strengthen homeland security, while Mr. Craig's AgJOBS bill will not. One more article in the Washington Times, again by Frank Gaffney, Jr., from April 5 refers to the REAL ID Act as well as AgJOBS says: The REAL ID legislation is aimed at denying future terrorists the ability exploited by the September 11, 2001, hijackers namely, to hold numerous valid driver's licenses, which they used to gain access to airports and their targeted aircraft. It is no small irony, therefore, that the presence of the REAL ID provisions on the military's supplemental funding bill is being cited by the Senate parliamentarian as grounds for Senator Larry Craig, Idaho Republican, to try to attach to it legislation that would help eviscerate what passes for restrictions on illegal immigration. The article continues: The agriculture sector of the US economy needs cheap labor. So let's legalize the presence in this country of anyone who can claim to have once worked for a little more than three months in that sector. We must not reward lawbreakers especially while we have so many people coming to this country legally. Last summer, I had an intern in my office from Rwanda. She fled during the genocide in 1994. She then came to this country as a refugee and became a legal permanent resident. It took her a year to get all her paperwork for becoming a legal resident and she will probably have to wade through similar bureaucracy to become a citizen as well. It frustrates me that people like her follow the rules and have to wait in the lines and wait for all the paperwork to be processed, while the illegal aliens can sneak into our country, and then, if they do apply for legal status, they slow down the process for those who came here legally. Not only does AgJOBS reward lawbreakers, it also robs many Americans of jobs they are willing to do. Roy Beck from Numbers USA in his testimony on March 24, 2004, before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, quoted Alan Greenspan from February of last year as saying that America has an ``oversupply of low-skilled, low-educated workers.'' In fact, according to Mr. Beck's testimony, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the number of unemployed Americans includes a majority of workers without a high school diploma. Basically, we have a great supply of lower educated American workers without jobs, while ironically, the main purpose of the AgJOBS bill is to bring in low-educated, low-skilled foreign workers for jobs that these Americans are able and willing to fill. A recent article from March 31 of this year in the San Diego Union- Tribune entitled ``Importing a Peasant Class'', written by Jerry Kammer, emphasizes this point by saying: Nearly two decades after a sweeping amnesty for illegal immigrants [referring to the 1986 Amnesty] gave Gerardo Jimenez a ticket out of a San Diego County avocado orchard, he worries that the unyielding tide of low-wage workers from Latin America might pull the economic rug out from under his feet. Jimenez, who is from Mexico and supervises a drywall crew that worked all winter remodeling an office building three blocks from the White House says, ``There are too many people coming.'' The article goes on to say: Jimenez's concern reflects an ambivalence about immigration among established immigrants in America. It also challenges a key assumption of President Bush's proposal for a massive new guest-worker program: that the United States has a dearth of low-skill workers. This is not true, we do not have a dearth of low-skill workers. Not only does S. 359 keep able Americans from performing these jobs; it also drives down wages and stifles innovation and technology for these jobs. The same San Diego Union-Tribune article I just quoted from continues saying: In Atlanta, house painter Moises Milano says competition for jobs is so stiff among immigrants that house painters' wages have been flat since he came to the United States in the late 1980. They're still $9 an hour, he said, which would mean they've actually fallen significantly when adjusted for inflation. And yet many more aspiring house painters arrive every day from Latin America. Similar concerns can be heard throughout low-wage industries that Latino immigrants have come to dominate during recent decades, including housekeeping, landscaping, janitorial, chicken processing, meat packing, restaurants, hotels and fast food. The article goes on to say: Jimenez says his company competes for contracts against subcontractors using illegal workers who are prepared to work for less and who don't expect health insurance, overtime or other employment benefits. ``It puts pressure on his employer to cut labor costs, he said.'' Jimenez explains why the migrants come and how it hurts current immigrants: ``The migrants come because of hunger, because of necessity . . . but I would benefit if someone imposed order,'' he says. ``My work would be worth more.'' Jimenez says that he won't be able to compete with companies that hire illegal workers so that they can pay lower wages. Not only are workers like Jimenez facing tough competition from companies who hire illegals, but a GAO study from 1988 found that other fields, such as cleaning office buildings, were also experiencing lower wages and more competition as a result of foreign workers. Cleaning office buildings used to pay a decent wage, however as more foreign workers entered the field, wages, benefits and working conditions began to collapse. Other labor-intensive fields, such as the construction and the meatpacking industry, have also experienced a drop in pay after an influx of foreign workers. By allowing employers to flood the labor market with foreign workers in these sectors, wages and working conditions have gone down drastically and made these jobs much less attractive to American workers; while making them much more attractive to alien workers. As for stifling technological advances, according to a February 9, 2004, article appearing in National Review: the huge supply of low-wage illegal aliens encourages American farmers to lag technologically behind farmers in other countries. The article continues: Raisin production in California still requires that grapes be cut off by hand and manually turned on the drying tray. In other countries, farmers use a labor-saving technique called drying on the vine. A cutoff of the illegal-alien flow would encourage American farmers to adopt many of these technological innovations, and come up with new ones. Another, and possibly more important problem with S. 359, is the risk it poses to our homeland security. It has some of the same loopholes that the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, IRCA, contained. It also overwhelms the already burdened immigration system, not to mention that there are no criminal or terrorist records for these people. For example, an Egyptian illegal immigrant named Mahmud Abouhalima came to America on a tourist visa in 1985. The visa expired in 1986, but Abouhalima stayed here, working illegally as a cab driver. Abouhalima received permanent residency, a green card, in 1988, after winning amnesty under the 1986 IRCA law. Although he had never worked in agriculture in the United States, Abouhalima acquired legal status through the special agricultural workers program--which is essentially what the AgJobs bill does. Once he had become legalized, Abouhalima was able to travel freely to Afghanistan. He received combat training during several trips there. Abouhalima used his amnesty/legalization and his terrorist training as a lead organizer of the 1993 plot to bomb the World Trade Center and other New York landmarks. The special agricultural worker amnesty program enacted as part of the 1986 Amnesty saw many ineligible illegal aliens fraudulently apply for, and successfully receive, amnesty. Up to two-thirds of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under that program had submitted fraudulent applications, just like Abouhalima. We cannot afford to allow ourselves to be vulnerable to terrorists by allowing these people to stay in our country. I want to work with my colleague to address this problem of illegal immigration. Over the last century, several Presidential and congressionally mandated Commissions including the 1907 Roosevelt Commission on Country Life to the 1990 Barbara Jordan Commission on Immigration Reform have been appointed to study immigration to the United States. These seven Commissions each possessing different mandates, membership makeup, studies and historical context in which their work was performed had some similar findings including: U.S. policy should actively discourage the dependence of any industry on foreign workers. Dependence on a foreign agricultural labor force is especially problematic because of the seasonal nature of the work, which leads to high un- and under-employment and results in the inefficient use of labor. Strict enforcement of immigration and labor laws is the key to a successful immigration policy that benefits the nation. Unfortunately, AgJOBS violates each of these principles. It ensures the dependence of the agricultural industry on foreign workers by eliminating any possibility that wages and working conditions in agriculture will improve sufficiently to attract U.S. workers, whether citizens or lawful permanent residents. AgJOBS actually reduces wages statutorily by freezing the required wage rate for new foreign workers, known as H-2A nonimmigrants, at its January 1, 2003, level for 3 years. In Oklahoma it is currently $7.89. It also actually discourages agricultural employers from pursuing innovations, such as mechanization, that would reduce their reliance on seasonal labor. AgJOBS guarantees employers an ``indentured'' labor force for at last the first 6 years after enactment. Employers can pay as little as minimum wage while the newly amnestied workers have no choice but to accept whatever the employer offers them since they are required to continue working in agriculture in order to get a green card. Additionally, AgJOBS requires the American taxpayer to foot the bill for maintaining this large, seasonal workforce by allowing: Illegal aliens who apply for amnesty under AgJOBS to receive taxpayer-funded counsel from Legal Services Corporation to assist them with filling out their applications; the amnestied aliens to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits if they are unable to find other unskilled work during the off-season, the amnestied aliens to use publicly funded services like education and emergency health care this is almost free since many of these aliens have artificially low wages thus making their tax contributions extremely low. Finally, AgJOBS does not contain any provisions to tighten enforcement of U.S. immigration or labor laws. In fact, by rewarding illegal aliens with amnesty, AgJOBS will encourage even more illegal immigration. By the time the amnestied aliens are released from ``indentured servitude'' under AgJOBS, agricultural employers will have access to a whole new population of illegal-alien workers and the cycle will be well on its way to repeating itself, just as it did after the ``one- time-only'' amnesty for agricultural workers in 1986. I also believe both the REAL ID Act, sponsored by my colleague in the House, Congressman Sensenbrenner, as well as a bill I supported in the last Congress, are sound ways to strengthen our immigration system. The REAL ID Act would make it more difficult for people who are violating our laws by being in our country illegally, as well as engaging in terrorist activities, to stay in the United States. Unfortunately, I was forced to vote against the intelligence bill in December because the provisions that are in the REAL ID Act were excluded from the intelligence bill. One such provision in the current REAL ID Act has to do with a 3.5- mile gap in a border fence between San Diego and Tijuana. People are able to come and go as they please. This is where many illegal immigrants are coming through; some of them could even be terrorists. Apparently, this gap has been left open because of a maritime succulent shrub, which is the environment in which two pairs of endangered birds live. These two pairs of birds, the vireo and the flycatcher, might be harassed--not killed--but harassed if the fence is completed. I checked with the U.S. Geological Survey and found that there are an estimated 2,000 vireos and 1,000 flycatchers in existence today, and at the most, not building the fence prevents two pairs of birds from being harassed. Is it better to harass two pairs of birds or leave this 3.5- mile gap open for terrorists or other law-breakers to come through? I assume that not building the fence, leaving it open for aliens to trample on this environment, the home to these birds causes more harassment than actually building a fence. Another provision in the REAL ID Act is the requirement for proof of lawful presence in the United States. This requirement applies to immigration law provisions passed in 1996, which I supported. The temporary license requirement, including a requirement that the license term should expire on the same date as a visa or other temporary lawful presence-authorizing document, is in the REAL ID Act. This means if you are here on a document--such as a visa--and it expires, your driver's license should expire at the same time. Under current law, this is not the case The REAL ID Act requires official identification to expire on the same date as a person's visa or other presence-authorizing document. Electronic confirmation by various State departments of motor vehicles to validate other States' driver's licenses is another important item in the REAL ID Act. Had Virginia officials referenced the Florida records of Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers and masterminds behind 9/11, when he was stopped in Virginia, it is likely they would have discovered that his license was not current. The REAL ID Act will make it difficult for instances such as this to take place. While I strongly support the steps taken in the REAL ID Act to strengthen our immigration laws, I remain vigilant, and look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that American citizens' individual liberties are not infringed upon. I also want to be aware of and oppose efforts to explicitly create a national ID card which could contain all of a person's personal information. Finally, in the 108th Congress, I cosponsored S. 1906, the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2003, which was introduced by my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, and my former colleague from Georgia, Senator Miller, and was also cosponsored by my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig. S. 1906 would give our law enforcement and immigration and border officers the tools and funding they need to do their jobs. More specifically, S. 1906 would: clarify for law enforcement officers that they have the legal authority to enforce immigration violations while carrying out their routine duties; increase the amount of information regarding deportable illegal aliens entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center database, making the information more readily available to state and local officials; supply additional facilities and beds to retain criminal aliens once they have been apprehended, instead of releasing them, which occurs quite frequently; require the Federal Government to either take illegal aliens into custody or pay the locality or State to detain them, instead of telling those officials to release the aliens because no one is available to take custody; require that criminal aliens be retained until deportation under the Institutional Removal Program, so that they are not released back into the community; mandate that States only give driver's licenses to legal immigrants and make the license expire the same day the alien's permission to be in the country expires. In conclusion, let's work to improve and enforce our laws and not reward those who break them. I ask unanimous consent that several pertinent articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the University of Oklahoma Sooners men's gymnastics team for winning the 2005 NCAA Division I men's gymnastics championship on April 8, 2005 at West Point, NY. This historic achievement is an enormous source of pride for the university that they represent as well as for the people of my entire State. This championship achieved by the Sooners, under the outstanding leadership of NCAA Coach of the Year Mark Williams, is OU's sixth overall national title and their third in the past 4 years. It was undoubtedly an accomplishment that they earned and grittily sweated out. The Sooners' dramatic victory over second-place Ohio State came down to the wire with the competition narrowly being determined by the final rotation on the vault. Freshman Jonathan Horton delivered a heroic performance, which secured OU's winning score of 225.675 over the Buckeyes' 225.450. The tremendous success of the 2005 Sooners gives support to the Sports Illustrated cover's designation of Oklahoma as ``America's Gymnastics Hotbed'' that notably included the International Gymnastics Hall of Fame, the Bart Conner Gymnastics Academy, Nadia Comaneci, Shannon Miller, and the world's largest gymnastics magazine, International Gymnast. In addition to the national championship, the Sooners boasted six team members who attained a total of 13 All-America honors for OU at the individual event finals. The 13 honors of 2005 added to an already substantial collection of 141 honors garnered by the university over the 39 years of the men's gymnastics program's existence. Moreover, senior David Henderson's 2005 NCAA title on the still rings, gave OU its 18th all-time individual national champion, capping off a brilliant 4 years for this extraordinary young man. The Sooners' victory is a product of the heart, determination, and teamwork of these exceptional student athletes, and I extend my heart- felt congratulations to the entire team for a job truly well done and well deserved. S. Res. 110

Mr. INHOFE. Madam. President, I also rise today to extend my congratulations to the Oklahoma State University's wrestling team for winning the 2005 National Collegiate Athletic Association's Division I Wrestling Championship on March 19, 2005, at St. Louis, MO. The Cowboys' historic victory this year contributes to an already exceptional legacy of achievement that makes the OSU wrestling program a touchstone for all others. In fact, the Collegiate Wrestling Hall of Fame is at OSU. The 2005 Championship title is the 33rd overall title in the storied history of wrestling at OSU, and also represents the most possessed by any school in the history of Division I wrestling. Moreover, this year's win marks the Cowboys' third consecutive championship under the dynasty of Coach John Smith, an accomplishment that had not occurred at OSU since the 1954 to 1956 seasons. Indeed, the Cowboys' dominance was in full display not only during the season in which they went undefeated but also in the finals where they continued to remain perfect. The Cowboys swept all five of its matches and clinched the national championship, getting titles from Steve Mocco, Zack Esposito, Johny Hendricks, Chris Pendleton, and Jake Rosholt and tying the record of five championships set by Iowa in 1997. In all, OSU finished with an all-time high of 153 points and far surpassed second-place Michigan by 70 points, which was the second highest winning margin in NCAA wrestling history. Much credit for this amazing achievement undoubtedly goes to coach John Smith, who was named Big 12 Wrestling Coach of the Year for the sixth time in his career. Finally I would be remiss, if I did not recognize the extraordinary effort, commitment, and grit of these student athletes. They are a tremendous source of pride for their university and community, and I offer them my sincere congratulations for all that they have achieved.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?