Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Bayh and I have an amendment on Humvees the floor manager is familiar with. I am going to speak on that issue. The amendment is a Bayh-Kennedy amendment. My colleague and friend, the Senator from Indiana, intends to address the Senate very shortly on this issue. I wanted to take an opportunity, in these final hours of consideration of the supplemental, to bring this to the attention of the Senate and the American people. I am delighted to join my colleague Senator Bayh in sponsoring our amendment which increases the funding for the procurement of up-armored Humvees for the Army. The Senate is currently debating an appropriations bill that will provide $81 billion primarily for the ongoing war in Iraq. This funding will bring the total United States bill for the war in Iraq to $192 billion and still counting. All of us support our troops. We obviously want to do all we can to see that they have the proper equipment, vehicles, and everything else they need to protect their lives and carry out their missions. It is scandalous that the administration has kept sending them into battle in Iraq without the proper equipment. No soldier should be sent into battle unprotected. That is exactly what happened in Iraq. As recently as December 2004, soldiers were still digging through landfills to find metal plating to attach to their vehicles for protection--their ``hillbilly'' armor, they call it. It has also been well documented that parents went in desperation to the local Wal-Mart to buy armored plates and mail them to their sons and daughters serving in Iraq. That is incomprehensible and unacceptable for our soldiers. More than 400 troops have already died in military vehicles, vulnerable to roadside bombs, grenades, and other so-called improvised explosive devices. Our amendment will provide additional funding to buy up- armored Humvees and add-on armor kits for the Humvees for the Army. As we all know, the Humvee is a highly mobile four-wheel-drive vehicle. The up-armored Humvee is a version with bullet-resistant windows and steel-plate armor on the doors and underside to protect against rifle rounds and explosive blasts. It has additional armor for the turret gunner on the roof to protect against artillery, and a powerful air conditioning system. The add-on armor kits are mounted on the existing Humvees to give almost as much protection. According to a Philadelphia Inquirer article 2 weeks ago, the Army says all of its 35,000 vehicles in Iraq now have some sort of armor. But a third of them are protected with nothing more than crudely cut sheets of steel which are inadequate by the Army's own standards, according to figures released Friday. The largest threats for vehicles are improvised explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades, small arms fire, and landmines. Humvees and other military vehicles have become the target of choice for insurgents. Shrapnel from roadside bombs or even a simple AK-47 round can slice through an unprotected Humvee. Some of them have little more than vinyl fabric for their roofs and doors. Our troops in unprotected Humvees in Iraq would be safer riding in SUVs. According to the Center for Army Lessons Learned, the harm to both personnel and equipment from improvised explosive devices is greatly reduced when traveling in an up-armored Humvee. It has taken far too long to solve this problem. We have to make sure we solve it now, once and for all. We can't keep throwing money at it and hope it goes away. The delay in correcting the problem has cost the lives of many brave young men and women killed in combat because they were in unarmored vehicles. On July 20, 2003, SGT Justin Garvey, a Massachusetts casualty, was with the 101st Airborne Division and was killed in Mosul when his unarmored Humvee was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade while on patrol. A few months later, on September 1, 2003, SSG Joseph Camara and SGT Charles Caldwell, Massachusetts natives with the Rhode Island National Guard, were killed north of Baghdad when their unarmored Humvee struck a mine. On October 18, 2003, PFC John Hart of Bedford, MA, was killed in Taza in Iraq, when his unarmored Humvee was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. I attended his burial at Arlington National Cemetery on November 4, 2003. I still remember the letter the parents showed me from that young man saying he was out on patrol and if he did not get armor on his Humvee, the chances of his survival were going to be very limited. Three weeks later he was lost. Last week, a Kentucky National Guard soldier died when shrapnel came through the window of his vehicle. A comrade says James A. Sherrill, 27, could have been saved if antiballistic glass had been installed. The saddest part of this story is that the Army could have and should have moved more quickly to correct the problem. As retired GEN Paul Kern, who headed the Army Materiel Command until last November, said: . . . It took too long to materialize. In retrospect, if I had it to do all over again, I would have just started building up-armored Humvees. The most efficient way would have been to build a single production line and feed everything into it. In a letter to me dated October 20, 2003, General Abizaid, the CENTCOM Commander, said: The FY 2004 Supplemental Request will permit the services to rapidly resolve many of the equipment issues that you mentioned to include the procurement of . . . Humvees. That goes back to October 20, 2003, General Abizaid saying that the 2004 appropriations were going to solve this problem. In February 2004, General Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified at an Armed Services Committee hearing that: . . . the army never intended to up-armor every Humvee-- never until this kind of situation that we have today . . . We have taken armored units, artillery units, all kind of other units and put them into Humvees as motorized formations, which never existed before. And so this is an area where you cannot fix it overnight. That is in February of 2004. And we are now in April of 2005. The problem still hasn't been fixed. On December 8, 2004, during a townhall meeting with the United States Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in Kuwait, a young soldier alerted the American public to the issue of armor shortages when he asked: Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don't we have those sources readily available to us? After the applause from the troops, Rumsfeld replied: It's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, you to go war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. He later remarked in the same townhall meeting: You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up. We have been told for months that the shortage of up-armored Humvees was a thing of the past and the Army has enough to ensure that every Humvee that left a protected base in Iraq would be an up-armored Humvee or a Humvee with an add-on kit. This month, the GAO released a report that clearly identifies the struggle the Army has faced. In August 2003, only 51 up-armored Humvees were being produced a month. It took the industrial base a year and a half to work up to making 400 a month. Imagine that. It took a year and a half for the United States of America to move from 50 a month to 400 a month; a year and a half. I don't know how many saw that incredible documentary on the History Channel the other night of President Roosevelt talking about the gearing up in World War II, where we were producing a victory ship a day, over 350,000 planes a year, this country. A victory ship a day we were producing, 350,000 planes a year, and it took us a year and a half to move from 50 to 400 a month. This wasn't given a priority. Of the 35 young Americans from Massachusetts who have been killed, a third of them have been killed from attacks on Humvees. The great majority of those, the veterans say, could have survived if they had had the protected Humvees. It is obvious the Department has no solution, did not have the priority to provide for the up-armor of the Humvees. Secretary of the Army Brownlee told the Armed Services Committee in October 2003 that: . . . with the up-armored Humvee, it is more of a challenge. If we go strictly with the up-armored Humvee, it could be as late as the summer of '05 before we would have them all. This is in October 2003, we are told in the Armed Services Committee it is going to be the summer of 2005 before our troops are going to have the protection they should. Since it is now spring 2005, it looks as though he was right. According to the GAO report, there are two primary causes for the shortage of up-armored vehicles and add-on armor kits. First, a decision was made to ramp up production gradually rather than use the maximum available capacity. Second, the funding allocations did not keep up with the rapidly increasing requirements. Obviously, the Pentagon was still being influenced by its cakewalk mentality. The GAO report specifically states that the Pentagon decisionmakers set the rate at which both up-armored Humvees and armor kits would be produced and did not tell Congress about the total available production capacity. The GAO was unable to determine what criteria were used to set the pace of production. In both cases, additional production capacity was available, particularly for the kits, but not used. The funding issue was part of the problem. Funds were available to support the planned pace of production of up-armored Humvees. But GAO found that four program managers were not aware of the timeframe for releasing funds. Although the Army received over $1.4 billion between fiscal years 2003 and 2004 to produce 7,500 vehicles, it was not released in a timely and predictable way. In August of 2003, the managers received requirements for 1,407 vehicles, but had received funding to produce less than half of that number. By October 2003, program managers had a requirement to produce 3,000 vehicles, but once again received funding to produce less than half of that. Significant differences continued until April of 2004, when requirements reached 4,400 vehicles and the program managers received funding to produce 4,300 vehicles. The major short-term solution to the up-armored Humvee funding issue has been the additional funds from congressional increases. Parents and spouses of fallen service members contacted Members of Congress to demand attention to the problem. For fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Army received over $1.4 billion to produce 7,500 up-armored Humvees to meet worldwide requirements, including 8,000 vehicles required for the CENTCOM's area of operation. In fiscal year 2004, the Army received more than $1 billion to produce up-armored Humvees. Compared to the Bush administration's budget request for $51 million, the parents and spouses made an enormous impact. To meet the continuing needs for force protection, Congress recommended $865 million in the 2005 appropriations bill to be used by the Army for additional armor for Humvees and other vehicles. As part of the Rapid Response Force Protection Initiative, Congress intends the funds to be used for a variety of vehicles to respond rapidly to the threat of improvised explosive devices and mortar attacks against our forces. These are short-term fixes. Amazingly, the GAO found that Army officials have still not made long-term efforts to improve the availability of up-armored Humvees or add-on armor kits. We need to get ahead of this problem. The requirements for up-armored Humvees keep changing. Of the time I have been in the Armed Services Committee, we have had nine different estimates by the military--I will include them in the Record--in their testimony before us, going from 30 September 2003, for 1700; November 2003, 3,000. Then they kept going up by thousands over time. Young American servicemen who are out on patrols do not have that equipment. It is one thing if the insurgents have some surprise capability and some technique or technology that we are not prepared to deal with, but we know how to uparmor humvees and we know how to make armor plating. The fact that we have young people who are risking their lives without that protection is what this amendment is about. I know we will hear from the other side--because I have heard it every time I have been part of offering an increase in the funding for the last 3 years-- we have enough, we don't need more. We will hear that here again. But we find out that we are still shortchanging the military. Gary Motsek, Director of Support Operations for the Army Materiel Command in Fort Belvoir, VA, said: I'm going to get in trouble, but the real challenge is, there had always been an assumption, quite frankly, that the requirements would continue to tail off. Obviously, since we are still losing an average of more than one soldier a day since the Iraqi elections in January, those assumptions are clearly wrong. It is a tragedy that our soldiers are still paying the price for this delay. In 2003, when it came time to mass-produce uparmored humvees, the Army had only a single source to turn to. It had little interest in this work before Iraq and did not shop for others. Pentagon Acquisition Chief, Michael Wynne, testified to Congress a year ago: It's a sad story to report to you, but had we known then what we know now, we would probably have gotten another source involved. Every day, our soldiers are being killed or wounded in Iraq by IEDs, RPGs, small arms fire. Too many of these attacks are on humvees that are not uparmored. . . . We are directing that all measures to provide protection to our soldiers be placed on a top priority, most highly urgent, 24- 7 basis. That is his recent statement and we welcome it. In his testimony, Wynne said: It is a sad story, but had we known what the parents knew and what those on the front lines knew, certainly we would have acted quicker. But 24-7 didn't happen even then until January this year. The plant had capacity that the Army never consistently used, as the plant manager has said. In November 2003, I asked Secretary Brownlee about armor delays, noting that the three Massachusetts soldiers had died in unarmored humvees. ``Are they running their plant 24 hours?'' Secretary Brownlee said the plant in Ohio was running at ``maximum capacity.'' But it wasn't. Army documents show the monthly armor production at the plant fell after that, from about 55 to 45 humvees a month, in December. The plant took its usual week off at Christmas and the armoring plant took two 4-day weekends. Owners say they could have built more--if the Army had ordered it. In early 2004, Members of Congress toured the plant and found that its ballistic glass operation was operating on just one shift. Now we have an opportunity to end this frustration once and for all. Our soldiers in Iraq deserve the very best, and it is our job to make sure the Department of Defense is finally getting it right. Too many soldiers have died because of these needless delays, but hopefully this will be solved by what we do in this bill today. The Bayh-Kennedy amendment contributes significantly to this goal. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I point out that in the House they have found that there wasn't sufficient funding for the President's request. The House appropriators increased their appropriations by $232 million. They thought that was the bare minimum to bring it up on their review of the shortage. I think the Bayh-Kennedy amendment is much closer to the real need. But clearly it is very important that we have an increase in this particular funding in this area. Mr. President, I hope the committee is willing to accept the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a paper indicating rising humvee requirements be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I rise in opposition to the inclusion of the so-called REAL ID bill in the emergency supplemental appropriations conference report. That bill is harmful and unnecessary. The Intelligence Reform Act we approved overwhelmingly last year provides real border security solutions. The so-called REAL ID bill contains controversial provisions we rejected last year and should reject again. It's a false solution on border security. There's no need to revisit these issues again, and they serve no purpose except to push an anti-immigrant agenda. The supporters of the REAL ID bill continue to say that loopholes exist in our immigration and asylum system that are being exploited by terrorists, and this bill will close them. In fact, it does nothing to improve national security, and leaves other big issues unresolved. Asylum seekers would find no refuge. Battered women would be exposed to abuse. Many Americans would have problems getting driver's licenses, and law enforcement would be outsourced to bounty hunters. All of our laws, including labor laws, would be waived to build a wall. For the first time since the Civil War, habeas corpus would be prohibited. Each year, countless refugees are forced to leave their countries, fleeing persecution. America has always been a haven for those desperate for that protection. At the very beginning of our history, the refugee Pilgrims seeking religious freedom landed on Plymouth Rock. Ever since we've welcomed refugees, and it's made us a better nation. They represent the best of American values. They have stood alone, at great personal cost, against hostile governments for fundamental principles like freedom of speech and religion. With this legacy, we have a responsibility to examine our asylum policies carefully, to see that they are fair and just. The REAL ID bill would trample this noble tradition and make it devastating for legitimate asylum-seekers fleeing persecution. It would make it more difficult for victims fleeing serious human rights abuses to obtain asylum and safety, and could easily lead to their return to their persecutors. Supporters of the REAL ID bill want us to believe that its changes will keep terrorists from being granted asylum. But current immigration laws already bar persons engaged in terrorist activity from asylum. Before they receive asylum, all applicants must also undergo extensive security checks, covering all terrorist and criminal databases at the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the CIA. Another section of the REAL ID bill contains a provision that would complete the US-Mexico border fence in San Diego. But it goes much further than that. It would require DHS to waive all laws necessary to build such fences, not just in San Diego, but anywhere else along our 2,000 mile border with Mexico and our 4,000 mile border with Canada. This unprecedented and unchecked power covers all Federal or State law deemed necessary to build the barriers, even child labor laws, worker health and safety laws, minimum wage laws, and environmental laws. It would even take away the rights of Native Americans to control their land. The cost of building such fences is into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and still won't stop illegal immigration. Immigrants who can find jobs in the U.S. and have no legal visas to enter will simply go around these walls. What we need are safe and legal avenues for immigrants to come here and work, not more walls. The REAL ID driver's license provisions don't make us safer either. The Intelligence Reform Act sets up a process for States and the Federal Government to work together to establish Federal standards for driver's licenses and identification cards, and progress is being made to implement these important measures. The REAL ID bill would repeal the driver's license provisions and replace them with highly problematic and burdensome requirements. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the REAL ID prescribes ``unworkable, unproven, costly mandates that compel States to enforce federal immigration policy rather than advance the paramount objective of making State-issued identity documents more secure and verifiable.'' The bill does nothing to address the threat of terrorists or to address legitimate security concerns. It would not have prevented a single 9/11 hijacker from obtaining a driver's license, or a single terrorist from boarding a plane. All 13 hijackers could have obtained licenses or IDs under this proposal, and foreign terrorists can always use their passports to travel. The REAL ID bill contains other broad and sweeping changes to laws that go to the core of our national identity. If enacted, it would deny judicial review and due process which could result in devastating consequences for immigrants and refugees. By restricting judicial review and habeas corpus, it could force people to be deported before they can challenge basic errors made in their cases. It would deny the constitutionally protected writ of habeas corpus, which has not been changed since the Civil War. Habeas corpus is a fundamental principle of American justice. It's called the ``great writ'' for a reason--because it's brought justice to people wrongly detained. Just as absurd, the bill will outsource law enforcement by giving ``bounty hunters'' unprecedented authority to apprehend and detain immigrants, even if a bond has not been breached. Bonding agents would be given the discretion and decision-making power that belongs to judges who have the necessary legal training to make these determinations. A major additional problem in the REAL ID bill is that it could result in the deportation even of long-time legal permanent residents, for lawful speech or associations that occurred twenty years ago or more. It raises the burden of proof to nearly impossible levels in numerous cases. A person who made a donation to a humanitarian organization involved in Tsunami relief could be deported if the organization or any of its affiliates was ever involved in violence. The burden would be on the donor to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he knew nothing about any of these activities. The spouse and children of a legal permanent resident could also be deported too based on such an accusation, because of their relationship to the donor. The provision could be applied retroactively, so that a permanent resident who had once supported the lawful, nonviolent work of the African National Congress in South Africa, Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, or the contras in Nicaragua would be deportable. It would be no defense to show that the only support was for lawful nonviolent activity. It would be no defense to show that the United States itself supported some of these groups. More than 600 organizations across the political spectrum oppose this legislation. A broad coalition of religious, immigrant, human rights, and civil liberties groups have expressed their own strong opposition. Also opposing the bill are the National Governors Association, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, and the National Conference of State Legislators, and a 9/11 family group, the September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. In these difficult times for our country, we know that the threat of terrorism has not ended, and we must do all we can to enact genuine measures to stop terrorists before they act, and to see that law enforcement officials have the full support they need. The REAL ID bill will not improve these efforts. It will not make us safer or prevent terrorism and it is an invitation to gross abuses. It is a false solution to national and border security. I urge the Senate to oppose the REAL ID bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senator Alexander again this year in introducing the American History Achievement Act. This bill is part of a continuing effort to renew the national commitment to teaching history and civics in the Nation's public schools. It lays the foundation for more effective ways of teaching children about the Nation's past and the value of civic responsibility. It contains no new requirements for schools, but it does offer a more frequent and effective analysis of how America's schoolchildren are learning these important subjects. Our economy and our future security rely on good schools that help students develop specific skills, such as reading and math. But the strength of our democracy and our standing in the world also depend on ensuring that children have a basic understanding of the nation's past and what it takes to engage in our democracy. An appreciation for the defining events in our nation's history can be a catalyst for civic involvement. Helping to instill appreciation of America's past--and teaching the values of justice, equality, and civic responsibility--should be an important mission of public schools. Thanks to the hard work of large numbers of history and civics teachers in classrooms throughout America, we're making progress. Results from the most recent assessment under the NAEP show that fourth and eighth graders are improving their knowledge of U.S. history. Research conducted in history classrooms shows that children are using primary sources and documents more often to explore history, and are being assigned historical and biographical readings by their teachers more frequently. But much more remains to be done to advance the understanding of both of these subjects, and see to it that they are not left behind in classrooms. A recent study by Dr. Sheldon Stern--the Chief Historian Emeritus at my brother's Presidential Library--suggests that State standards for teaching American history need improvement. His research reveals that 22 States have American history standards that are either weak or lack clear chronology, appropriate political and historical context, or sufficient information about real events and people. As many as 9 States still have no standards at all for American history. Good standards matter. They're the foundation for teaching and learning in every school. With the right resources, time, and attention, it's possible to develop creative and effective history standards in every State. Massachusetts began to work on this effort in 2000, through a joint review of history standards that involved teachers, administrators, curriculum coordinators, and university professors. After monthly meetings and three years of development and revision, the state released a new framework for teaching history in 2003. Today, our standards in American history and World history receive the highest marks. School budget problems at the local level are also a serious threat to these goals. Other accounts report that schools are narrowing their curriculums away from the social sciences, arts, and humanities, in favor of a more concentrated approach to the teaching of reading and math in order to meet the strict standards of the No Child Left Behind Act. Meeting high standards in reading and math is important, but it should not come at the expense of scaling back teaching in other core subjects such as history and civics. Integrating reading and math with other subjects often gives children a better way to master literacy and number skills, even while learning in a history, geography, or government lesson. That type of innovation deserves special attention in our schools. Making it happen requires added investments in teacher preparation and teacher mentoring, so that teachers are well prepared to use interdisciplinary methods in their lesson plans. Our bill today takes several important steps to strengthen the teaching of American history and civics, and raise the standing of these subjects in school curriculums. Through changes to the National Assessment for Educational Progress, schools will be better able to achieve success on this important issue. First, we propose a more frequent national assessment of children in American history under the NAEP. For years, NAEP has served as the gold standard for measuring the progress of students and reporting on that progress. Students last participated in the U.S. history NAEP in 2001, and that assessment generated encouraging results. But the preceding assessment with which we can compare data--was administered in 1994-- too long before to be of real assistance. It makes sense to measure the knowledge and skills of children more frequently. This bill would place priority on administering the national U.S. history NAEP assessment, to generate a more timely picture of student progress. We should have an idea of children's knowledge and skills in American history more often than every 6 or 7 years, in order to address gaps in learning. The bill also proposes a leap forward to strengthen State standards in American history and civics, through a new State-level pilot assessment of these subjects under NAEP. The assessment would be conducted on an experimental basis in 10 States, in grades 8 and 12. The National Assessment Governing Board would ensure that States with model standards, as well as those that are still under development, participate in this assessment. Moving NAEP to the State level does not carry any high stakes for schools. But it will provide an additional benchmark for States to develop and improve their standards. It's our hope that states will also be encouraged to undertake improvements in their history curricula and in their teaching of civics, and ensure that both subjects are a beneficiary and not a victim of school reform. America's past encompasses great leaders and great ideas that contributed to our heritage and to the principles of freedom, equality, justice, and opportunity for all. Today's students will be better citizens in the future if they learn more about that history and about the skills needed to participate in our democracy. The American History Achievement Act is an important effort toward that goal, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Douglas Thompson, a Navy fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of H.R. 1268, the emergency supplemental.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senator Alexander again this year in introducing the American History Achievement Act. This bill is part of a continuing effort to renew the national commitment to teaching history and civics in the Nation's public schools. It lays the foundation for more effective ways of teaching children about the Nation's past and the value of civic responsibility. It contains no new requirements for schools, but it does offer a more frequent and effective analysis of how America's schoolchildren are learning these important subjects. Our economy and our future security rely on good schools that help students develop specific skills, such as reading and math. But the strength of our democracy and our standing in the world also depend on ensuring that children have a basic understanding of the nation's past and what it takes to engage in our democracy. An appreciation for the defining events in our nation's history can be a catalyst for civic involvement. Helping to instill appreciation of America's past--and teaching the values of justice, equality, and civic responsibility--should be an important mission of public schools. Thanks to the hard work of large numbers of history and civics teachers in classrooms throughout America, we're making progress. Results from the most recent assessment under the NAEP show that fourth and eighth graders are improving their knowledge of U.S. history. Research conducted in history classrooms shows that children are using primary sources and documents more often to explore history, and are being assigned historical and biographical readings by their teachers more frequently. But much more remains to be done to advance the understanding of both of these subjects, and see to it that they are not left behind in classrooms. A recent study by Dr. Sheldon Stern--the Chief Historian Emeritus at my brother's Presidential Library--suggests that State standards for teaching American history need improvement. His research reveals that 22 States have American history standards that are either weak or lack clear chronology, appropriate political and historical context, or sufficient information about real events and people. As many as 9 States still have no standards at all for American history. Good standards matter. They're the foundation for teaching and learning in every school. With the right resources, time, and attention, it's possible to develop creative and effective history standards in every State. Massachusetts began to work on this effort in 2000, through a joint review of history standards that involved teachers, administrators, curriculum coordinators, and university professors. After monthly meetings and three years of development and revision, the state released a new framework for teaching history in 2003. Today, our standards in American history and World history receive the highest marks. School budget problems at the local level are also a serious threat to these goals. Other accounts report that schools are narrowing their curriculums away from the social sciences, arts, and humanities, in favor of a more concentrated approach to the teaching of reading and math in order to meet the strict standards of the No Child Left Behind Act. Meeting high standards in reading and math is important, but it should not come at the expense of scaling back teaching in other core subjects such as history and civics. Integrating reading and math with other subjects often gives children a better way to master literacy and number skills, even while learning in a history, geography, or government lesson. That type of innovation deserves special attention in our schools. Making it happen requires added investments in teacher preparation and teacher mentoring, so that teachers are well prepared to use interdisciplinary methods in their lesson plans. Our bill today takes several important steps to strengthen the teaching of American history and civics, and raise the standing of these subjects in school curriculums. Through changes to the National Assessment for Educational Progress, schools will be better able to achieve success on this important issue. First, we propose a more frequent national assessment of children in American history under the NAEP. For years, NAEP has served as the gold standard for measuring the progress of students and reporting on that progress. Students last participated in the U.S. history NAEP in 2001, and that assessment generated encouraging results. But the preceding assessment with which we can compare data--was administered in 1994-- too long before to be of real assistance. It makes sense to measure the knowledge and skills of children more frequently. This bill would place priority on administering the national U.S. history NAEP assessment, to generate a more timely picture of student progress. We should have an idea of children's knowledge and skills in American history more often than every 6 or 7 years, in order to address gaps in learning. The bill also proposes a leap forward to strengthen State standards in American history and civics, through a new State-level pilot assessment of these subjects under NAEP. The assessment would be conducted on an experimental basis in 10 States, in grades 8 and 12. The National Assessment Governing Board would ensure that States with model standards, as well as those that are still under development, participate in this assessment. Moving NAEP to the State level does not carry any high stakes for schools. But it will provide an additional benchmark for States to develop and improve their standards. It's our hope that states will also be encouraged to undertake improvements in their history curricula and in their teaching of civics, and ensure that both subjects are a beneficiary and not a victim of school reform. America's past encompasses great leaders and great ideas that contributed to our heritage and to the principles of freedom, equality, justice, and opportunity for all. Today's students will be better citizens in the future if they learn more about that history and about the skills needed to participate in our democracy. The American History Achievement Act is an important effort toward that goal, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in recognition of our country's longstanding commitment to basic fairness for the Nation's hard-working men and women, I am introducing the Employee Free Choice Act. I want to thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Arlen Specter, for also supporting this important legislation to protect workers' right to free association. The essence of the American dream is the ability to provide a better life for yourself and your family. At the very heart of that dream are a good job, a good workplace, good health care, and a good retirement. Unfortunately, too many families today find that dream increasingly beyond their reach in today's global economy. Vast numbers of citizens suddenly find themselves in a race to the bottom against workers in other countries. Whoever is willing to work for the lowest pay gets the work. That is why the labor movement is more important today than ever. It's not the profits of business that are being shipped overseas. They're higher than ever. It is the jobs of American workers that are being outsourced, and they're being outsourced in droves. Hardworking Americans are paying a high price for this intense new era of worldwide competition. Our economy is growing, but workers are not benefiting. Business profits are up 70 percent since 2001, but wages have been stagnant. Labor unions have always led the fight for working families--for the 8-hour day and the 40-hour week--for overtime protections--for a fair minimum wage--for a safe and healthy workplace--for decent health insurance and a decent pension. Every working American deserves these protections. But when they try to organize, employers typically respond with threats and intimidation. They hire union-busting firms and force employees to listen to anti-union speeches. Companies close down departments--or even entire operations--to avoid negotiating a union contract. These are not isolated abuses. Every year, over 20,000 workers are illegally fired or discriminated against for exercising their labor rights. In at least one quarter of all organizing efforts, an employer illegally fires a worker for supporting the union. For these anti-union employers, union-busting is just another cost of doing business. America's workers deserve better, and our democracy deserves better. That is why I am introducing the Employee Free Choice Act, to protect the right of workers to choose a union. This bill seeks to level the playing field for employees attempting to organize a union or negotiate their first contract. It requires employers to come to the table to talk. And it puts real teeth in existing protections by strengthening the penalties for discriminating against workers who support a union. These protections are long overdue. For too long, Congress has failed to act against the anti-labor, anti-worker, anti-union tactics now far too prevalent in the workplace. This bill is an important step towards ensuring that millions of American workers and their families can do better in today's economy. I urge my colleagues to join me in this fight to support the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair, what is the time allocation presently?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend, Senator Craig, for his leadership in this area. As he just mentioned at the end of his comments, Senator Craig and I do not share a great many common positions but we both are enthusiastic about this legislation. We come to it from different interests, over long periods of time. He may remember, as I very well do, in the early 1960s, we had what was called the Bracero issue and problem. It was a very deep problem, where we had this extraordinary exploitation of workers who came across the border living in these absolutely inhumane conditions and being exploited like workers in no other part of the world. It took us a long time to get away from the Bracero problem and issue. There was enormous conflict between the workers and the growers for many years. I remember very distinctly the work of Cesar Chavez and the great interest that my brother Robert Kennedy had in the rights of immigrant workers. It was a poisonous atmosphere year after year. And now, through the hard work of many of those who were enlightened in the agribusiness, as well as the leadership with farmworkers, they came together to recommend legislation. I paid great respect to our House colleagues, Congressman Berman and Congressman Cannon, for their constancy in watching this issue develop. Mr. President, we have an opportunity in the Senate now to take a dramatic step forward toward true, meaningful, significant immigration reform. Agribusiness is only about 10 or 12 percent of the total problem. But should the Senate of the United States, in a bipartisan way, come to grips with this issue in a meaningful way, it will open the path for further action in these next few weeks and months so we can have a total kind of different view and way of handling immigration in our country. The current system is a disaster. It is enormously costly and unworkable. We have spent more than $24 billion over the period of the last 6 years, and the problem has gotten worse and worse. We hear talk about extending a fence across the borders in southern California for a number of miles. We have to be reminded the total border in the South is 1,880 miles. Are we going to have a fence that is going to extend that far, that long, over the period of the future? This system just does not work. We do not have enough border guards or policemen out there who are going to the borders. We have to have a dramatic alteration and change. We are not going to deport the 7 million or 8 million undocumented that are here, that are absolutely indispensable, primarily in the agricultural sector, but are playing increasing roles in other sectors as well. So we have an extraordinary problem. With all due respect to those who have tried the hard-line way of doing it, they have not been able to demonstrate any success. We hear those voices in the Senate, again: Give us another 500 border guards or some more barbed wire or another extension of the fence, let us just provide some additional kinds of technology, and we will solve our problem. No way. We have learned that lesson. We should have learned that lesson. Now we have an opportunity, under the proposal Senator Craig and I have proposed, and in a bipartisan way, to try a different way. With all respect to those who oppose this, we believe this is absolutely consistent in terms of our national security issues. The dangers to national security are what happens in the shadows, the alleyways. What is happening in the shadows and alleyways is happening among the undocumented. People are able to hide in those areas. If we bring the sunlight of legality to an immigration policy, we are going to make it much more difficult. We are going to free up border guards to be able to go after those who might be terrorists, instead of constantly looking out for the undocumented that are traveling back and forth across the border. If we have learned something over the period of time, it is immigration is not the problem. The problem is the terrorists. The best way to deal with that is to focus both manpower and technology to be able to deal with that. Now, our effort also responds to and rebuts the idea that this is amnesty. That is the quickest way to kill the legislation. People can say, look, this is amnesty, and then go back to their offices, and that shakes people up enough to say they are not going to support that. We are talking about men and women who have lived and worked here, paid their taxes here, and they have to have done it some time ago. We are not talking over the last year; we are talking about people who have worked and have been a part of the communities a number of years ago, to permit them a long period of time, probably stretched over a period of 7 to 9 years before they would even be eligible to start down the path toward citizenship--a long period of time, Mr. President. It just seems to me that these issues have been debated and discussed. Some have been misrepresented. Finally, this has a dramatic impact in terms of both working conditions and labor conditions for those who are going to be impacted by this issue. It is going to have a similar kind of impact in terms of American workers. You have undocumented, you have illegal workers; they are going to be exploited, and they are going to drive wages down, they are going to fear their boss or their employer might tell on them. Therefore, they are going to settle for less in terms of payment. That is only natural. We can understand that. We have the figures and statistics to demonstrate that. But when you drive those wages down, you drive the wages down for American workers in related industries in those areas, and we have the figures to show that, too. This has a depressing impact in terms of legitimate American workers as well. So I think this is an enormously important vote. If we are able to get support for this legislation, this will be a pathway to try to deal with the rest of the scene on immigration. If we are able to get the downpayment, which this is, this will open a new day and new opportunity. I don't often agree with the President of the United States, but he has at least addressed this issue. We come to different conclusions with regard to the ability to be able to earn their way into legitimacy on this issue. Nonetheless, he understands. We can understand why; he has been a Governor of a border State. I hope we can find a way of developing a common ground here--Republicans and Democrats, those who have been interested and have followed the challenges out there in terms of agribusiness, those of us who have been proud to represent the workers who, over a long period of time, have been exploited in too many instances and who have suffered. All they are looking for is fairness and respect and some ability to rejoin with members of their families. Not long ago, the Senate considered fast-track legislation regarding those individuals who were serving in the Armed Forces overseas--a number of them had actually lost their lives--who were permanent resident aliens--not even citizens, but were permanent resident aliens who served in our Armed Forces. The President gave citizenship to some who were killed in Iraq. We were able to try to provide for those going into the military at least some ability to faster citizenship. They were prepared to go to Iraq to die and fight for this country. All they wanted to do was be able to live in this country as well. If they were going to do that, we were going to understand and respect their service to this Nation. We provided an opportunity to move their process toward citizenship faster, if they were going to serve in the Armed Forces or be in the Guard and Reserve, with the real prospects of going to Iraq. Are we going to say those individuals, they are going to be able to get consideration, and their brothers and sisters who may not have gone into the service are still going to have to live in the shadows of illegality? It seems to me we ought to be able to find common ground. We ought to be able to provide common ground here when we recognize the current process and system is a disaster. We have an unregulated system where illegality is running rampant and, quite frankly, those who are opposed to us and offer alternatives are offering more of the same. This is an opportunity for a breakthrough. This is an opportunity for a new start. This is an opportunity for a bipartisan effort that is going to do something significant about the challenges we are facing with immigration. I hope it will be successful. I withhold the remainder of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the favorite techniques around here is people misstate what is in a particular proposal and then differ with it. I do not accuse anyone of doing that on this particular legislation, but I do believe they ought to listen to Senator Craig and myself as to exactly what our bill does and what it is intended to do. If there are some changes that will make these points clear, we are glad to do it. We want to free ourselves from distortions and misrepresentations. Opponents of reform continually mislabel any initiative they oppose as amnesty in a desperate attempt to stop any significant reform. Instead of proposing ways to fix our current broken system, they are calling for more of the same--increased enforcement of broken laws. However, enforcing a dysfunctional system only leads to greater dysfunction. To be eligible for legal status, applicants must present no criminal or national security problems. All applicants will be required to undergo rigorous security clearances. Their names and birth dates have to be checked against our Government's criminal and terrorist databases. Applicants' fingerprints will be sent to the FBI for a criminal background check which includes comparing the applicants' fingerprints with all arrest records in the FBI's database. Contrary to arguments made by detractors of AgJOBS, terrorists will not be able to exploit this program to obtain legal status. Anyone with any terrorist activity is ineligible for legal status under our current immigration laws and would be ineligible under the AgJOBS bill. Our proposal has no loopholes for terrorists. Opponents of AgJOBS claim this bill is soft on criminals. Wrong again. AgJOBS has the toughest provisions against those who commit crimes--tougher than current immigration law. Convictions for most crimes will make them ineligible to obtain a green card. Applicants can also be denied legal status if they commit a felony or three misdemeanors. It does not matter whether the misdemeanors involve minor offenses. In addition, anyone convicted of a single misdemeanor who served a sentence of 6 months or more would also be ineligible. Finally, opponents of the AgJOBS bill also claim it will be a magnet for further illegal immigration. Once again, they are wrong. To be eligible for the earned adjustment program, farmworkers must establish that they worked in agriculture in the past. Farmworkers must have entered the United States prior to October 2004; otherwise, they are not eligible. The magnet argument is false. New entrants who have worked in agriculture will not qualify for this program. This is a sensible, responsible, well-thought-out program that has had days of hearings and weeks and months of negotiations. It is a sensible answer, a downpayment to a problem this country needs to address. I believe, with all respect to my friends and colleagues on the other side, their proposal is more of the same. I hope the Senate will support our amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the time situation again?

Mr. KENNEDY. The other side?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in recognition of our country's longstanding commitment to basic fairness for the Nation's hard-working men and women, I am introducing the Employee Free Choice Act. I want to thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Arlen Specter, for also supporting this important legislation to protect workers' right to free association. The essence of the American dream is the ability to provide a better life for yourself and your family. At the very heart of that dream are a good job, a good workplace, good health care, and a good retirement. Unfortunately, too many families today find that dream increasingly beyond their reach in today's global economy. Vast numbers of citizens suddenly find themselves in a race to the bottom against workers in other countries. Whoever is willing to work for the lowest pay gets the work. That is why the labor movement is more important today than ever. It's not the profits of business that are being shipped overseas. They're higher than ever. It is the jobs of American workers that are being outsourced, and they're being outsourced in droves. Hardworking Americans are paying a high price for this intense new era of worldwide competition. Our economy is growing, but workers are not benefiting. Business profits are up 70 percent since 2001, but wages have been stagnant. Labor unions have always led the fight for working families--for the 8-hour day and the 40-hour week--for overtime protections--for a fair minimum wage--for a safe and healthy workplace--for decent health insurance and a decent pension. Every working American deserves these protections. But when they try to organize, employers typically respond with threats and intimidation. They hire union-busting firms and force employees to listen to anti-union speeches. Companies close down departments--or even entire operations--to avoid negotiating a union contract. These are not isolated abuses. Every year, over 20,000 workers are illegally fired or discriminated against for exercising their labor rights. In at least one quarter of all organizing efforts, an employer illegally fires a worker for supporting the union. For these anti-union employers, union-busting is just another cost of doing business. America's workers deserve better, and our democracy deserves better. That is why I am introducing the Employee Free Choice Act, to protect the right of workers to choose a union. This bill seeks to level the playing field for employees attempting to organize a union or negotiate their first contract. It requires employers to come to the table to talk. And it puts real teeth in existing protections by strengthening the penalties for discriminating against workers who support a union. These protections are long overdue. For too long, Congress has failed to act against the anti-labor, anti-worker, anti-union tactics now far too prevalent in the workplace. This bill is an important step towards ensuring that millions of American workers and their families can do better in today's economy. I urge my colleagues to join me in this fight to support the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend from New Mexico who was here before I was here. Let him proceed.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I welcome the opportunity to work this out. Can we perhaps get some time understanding as well? The Senator from Oregon mentioned he will probably need 15 minutes. Could we get some kind of understanding about the length of time? Generally we go from Republican to Democrat. Now we are looking at going from proponents to opponents. I do not mind that, but if we can limit this to 15 minutes each--I see we have a number of people--would that be agreeable? So we would go to Senator Wyden, and because the Senator from Arizona has been so persuasive, we will hear two on his side, and maybe Senator Bingaman can be recognized after Senator Wyden, and then two for the Senator's side, 15 minutes each, and then I be recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this mentions: The Chambliss-Kyl proposal would radically change the H-2A program, stripping it of all labor protections and Government oversight. This amendment would create a new year-round guest worker program with no meaningful labor protections and no role for the Department of Labor to enforce housing, pay, or other essential worker protections. The Chambliss-Kyl proposal would tie workers to particular employers and require them to leave the country if their jobs ended and no other employer petitioned for a visa for them within 60 days. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Chair would be good enough to notify me when I have 1 minute remaining, please.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join with Senator Craig in offering the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security amendment. America has a proud tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws, but our current immigration laws have failed us. Much of the Nation's economy today depends on the hard work and the many contributions of immigrants. The agricultural industry would grind to a halt without immigrant farmworkers. Yet the overwhelming majority of these workers are undocumented and are, therefore, easily exploited by unscrupulous employers. Our AgJOBS bill corrects these festering problems. It gives farmworkers and their families the dignity and justice they deserve, and it gives agricultural employers a legal workforce. Impressive work has been done by many grassroots organizations to make AgJOBS a reality. They have demonstrated true statesmanship by putting aside strongly held past differences to work together for the common good. We have our own responsibility to join in a similar way to approve this needed reform that is years overdue. I commend Senator Craig and Congressmen Berman and Cannon for their leadership. I urge my colleagues to wholeheartedly endorse the AgJOBS bill. Our bill reflects a far-reaching and welcome agreement between the United Farm Workers and the agricultural industry to meet this urgent need, and Congress should make the most of this unique opportunity for progress. Our bill has strong support from business and labor, civic and faith- based organizations, liberals and conservatives, trade associations and immigrant rights groups. More than 500 organizations across the country support it. AgJOBS is a bipartisan compromise reached after years of negotiations. Both farmworkers and growers have made concessions to reach this agreement, but each side has obtained important benefits. In contrast, opponents offer a one-sided proposal that has failed to win the broad support AgJOBS has received. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. It vastly favors employers at the expense of farmworkers. It makes harsh revisions to the current agricultural guest worker program and creates a new blue card program for undocumented workers without a path to permanent residence, and without any meaningful governmental oversight to prevent labor abuses. Agricultural employers would have the freedom to avoid hiring U.S. workers, displace U.S. workers already on the job, and force both U.S. workers and guest workers to accept low wages. They could do all this by claiming they can't find any U.S. workers. Even when the few labor protections are violated, workers would have no meaningful ability to enforce their legal rights. This program would return us to the dark and shameful era of the Bracero Program where abuses were rampant and widely tolerated. That is unacceptable. We must learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. The Chambliss amendment also ignores the needs of many growers and farmworkers. It offers no solution to the basic problem faced by agricultural employers--the problem that an overwhelming majority of the workers are undocumented. By offering no path to permanent residence for these undocumented workers, none of the guest workers, no matter how long they have worked, will ever be able to earn their permanent status. Perhaps more troubling is the amendment's repeal of the longstanding adverse effect wage rate under the current program. This wage rate was created during the Bracero Program as a necessary program against the depression in wages caused by guest worker programs. The Chambliss proposal would replace it with a prevailing wage standard, substantially lower than the adverse effect wage rate. It would be based on the employer's own survey of prevailing wages rather than the Labor Department's survey. Farmworkers, who are already the lowest paid workers in the United States, would see their wages drop even lower. In contrast, the AgJOBS bill preserves the adverse effect wage rate while recommendations are made to Congress to resolve these long-contested pay issues. The Chambliss amendment also eliminates the key provision that gives U.S. workers a job preference by employers who request guest workers. It would end the longstanding 50 percent rule which requires employers to hire qualified U.S. workers who applied during the first half of the season. Studies have shown that this rule is a valid protection. In addition, the Chambliss amendment would end what they call positive recruitment--the obligation of employers to look for U.S. workers outside of the government job service which currently provides farmworkers with agricultural jobs. This proposal creates a new guest worker program for the undocumented that would offer them visas that would be valid only for 3 years and renewable for up to 6 additional years. They would have no opportunity to earn a green card no matter how many years they worked in the United States. In fact, they would actually lose their status if they merely filed an application to become a permanent resident. Senator Chambliss believes that undocumented farmworkers will come out of the shadows and sign up for such a temporary worker program, but they are highly unlikely to do so. The vast majority will be deported after their temporary status expires. Registering as the first step towards deportation is unfair, and it just won't work. In contrast, the AgJOBS bill offers farmworkers a genuine earned adjustment program that will put these workers and their families on a path to permanent residence. Hard-working, law-abiding farmworkers will be able to come out of the shadows. The Chambliss amendment is far less satisfactory than the AgJOBS proposal, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Opponents of the AgJOBS bill claim that we are rushing this bill through Congress without full and careful consideration. This claim is without merit. Since 1998, the Immigration Subcommittee has held three hearings that have fully examined our agricultural workforce problems and the need to reform our immigration laws. Last year, we considered the issue once more. Legislation to address this problem has been introduced by both Republicans and Democrats in every Congress since 1996. In September 2000, a breakthrough occurred, and both sides agreed to support compromise legislation that won broad bipartisan congressional support. Unfortunately, attempts to enact it were blocked in the lameduck session that year. The election of President Bush in 2000 changed the dynamics of the agreement, and the compromise fell apart. A compromise was finally reached in September 2003 which led Senator Craig and me to introduce the AgJOBS bill. Last Congress, we had, as Senator Craig has pointed out, 63 Senate cosponsors, nearly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Despite such strong bipartisan support, the leadership last year blocked our attempt to obtain a vote on this legislation. This is the second Congress in which Senator Craig and I have introduced the AgJOBS bill. Congress has had extensive discussions of this legislation in the past, and it is long past time for us to act. Opponents of our amendment have offered no workable solutions. We cannot be complacent any longer. It is time for a new approach. The American people want commonsense solutions to real problems such as immigration. They want neither open borders nor closed borders. They want smart borders. They are neither anti-immigrant nor anti- enforcement. Instead, they are anti-disorder and anti-hypocrisy. They want the Federal Government to get its act together, to set rules that are realistic and fair, and to follow through and enforce these realistic rules effectively and efficiently. AgJOBS meets these goals. It addresses our national security needs, reflects current economic realities, and respects America's immigrant heritage. The status quo is untenable. In the last 10 years, the U.S. Government has spent more than $20 billion to enforce our immigration laws. We have tripled the number of border security agents, improved surveillance technology, installed other controls to strengthen border enforcement, especially at the southwest border. None of these efforts have been adequate. Illegal immigration continues. The proof is in the numbers. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of undocumented immigrants doubled from 3.5 million to 7 million. Today that number is nearly 11 million, with an average annual growth of almost 500,000. Those already here are not leaving, and new immigrants keep coming in. Massive deportations are unrealistic as a policy, impractical to carry out, and unacceptable to businesses that rely heavily on their labor. Obviously, we must control our borders and enforce our laws, but we first need realistic immigration laws that we can actually enforce. The AgJOBS bill is a significant step. By bringing these illegal workers out of the shadows, we will enable law enforcement to focus its efforts on terrorists and violent criminals. We will reduce the chaotic, illegal, all too deadly traffic of immigrants at our borders by providing safe opportunities for farmworkers and their families to enter and leave the country. The AgJOBS bill enhances our national security and makes our communities safer. It brings the undocumented farmworkers and their families out of the shadows and enables them to pass through security checkpoints. It shrinks the pool of law enforcement targets, enables our offices to train their sights more effectively on the terrorists and the criminals. The undocumented farmworkers eligible for this program will undergo rigorous security checks as they apply for legal status. Future temporary workers will be carefully screened to meet security concerns. The AgJOBS amendment provides a fair and reasonable way for undocumented agricultural workers to earn legal status. It reforms the current visa program so that agricultural employers unable to hire American workers can hire needed foreign workers. Both of these components are critical. They serve as the cornerstone for comprehensive immigration reform of the agricultural sector. Undocumented farmworkers are clearly vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous labor contractors and growers. They are less likely than U.S. workers to complain about low wages, poor working conditions, or other labor law violations. Their illegal status deprives them of bargaining power and depresses the wages of all farmworkers. These workers are already among the lowest paid of all workers in America. According to the most recent findings of the national agricultural workers survey issued last month, their average individual income is between $10,000 and $12,000 a year. The average annual family income is $15,000 to $17,000. Thirty percent of their households live below the poverty line. Only half of them own a car and even fewer own a home or even a trailer. By legalizing these farmworkers, the threat of deportation is removed. They will be on equal footing with U.S. workers and the end result will be higher wages, better working conditions, and upward job mobility for all workers. Opponents of reform continually mislabel any initiative they oppose as ``amnesty'' in a desperate attempt to stop any significant reform. Instead of proposing ways to fix our current broken system, they are calling for more of the same--increased enforcement of broken laws. However, enforcing a dysfunctional system only leads to greater dysfunction. The AgJOBS bill is not an amnesty bill. The program requires farmworkers to earn legal status. They must demonstrate not only contributions but also a substantial future work commitment before they earn the right to remain in our country. First, they will receive temporary resident status, based on their past work experience. They must have worked for at least 100 work days in agriculture by December 31, 2004. To earn permanent residence, they must fulfill a prospective work requirement. They must work at least 360 days in agriculture during a six-year period. At least 240 of those 360 work days must occur during the first 3 years. Temporary residents who fail to fulfill the prospective agricultural work requirement will be dropped from the program and required to leave the country. It's not amnesty if you have to earn it. AgJOBS offers farm workers a fair deal: if they are willing to work hard for us, then we're willing to do something fair for them. It's the only realistic solution. Contrary to statements made by its critics, AgJOBS does not provide a direct path to citizenship. Farm workers would first earn temporary residence if they provide evidence of past work in agriculture. The next step would be permanent residence, but only after they have completed thousands of hours of backbreaking work in agriculture--a process that could take up to 6 years. Once they earn permanent residence, these farm workers would have to wait another 5 years to be able to apply for citizenship. At that point, they would have to pass an English and civics exam, and go through extensive backgrounds checks. This process is long and arduous, as it should be. There is nothing direct about it. To be eligible for legal status, applicants must be persons of good moral character and present no criminal or national security problems. Whether they are applying here or at U.S. consulates abroad, all applicants will be required to undergo rigorous security clearances. Like all applicants for adjustment of status, their names and birth dates must be checked against criminal and terrorist databases operated by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the State Department, and the CIA. Applicants' fingerprints would be sent to the FBI for a criminal background check, which includes comparing the applicants' fingerprints with all arrest records in the FBI's database. Contrary to arguments made by detractors of AgJOBS, terrorists will not be able to exploit this program to obtain legal status. Anyone with any ties to terrorist activity is ineligible for legal status under our current immigration laws, and would be ineligible under the AgJOBS bill. Our proposal has no loopholes for terrorists. Opponents of AgJOBS claim that this bill is soft on criminals. Wrong again. AgJOBS has the toughest provisions against those who commit crimes--tougher than current immigration law. Convictions for most crimes will make them ineligible to obtain a green card. Generally, these convictions include violent crimes, drug crimes, theft, and domestic violence. AgJOBS goes even further. Applicants can be denied legal status if they commit a felony or three misdemeanors. It doesn't matter whether the misdemeanors involve minor offenses--three misdemeanors and you are out, no matter how minor the misdemeanors. In addition, anyone convicted of a single misdemeanor who served a sentence of 6 months or more would also be ineligible. These rules are additional requirements that do not apply to other immigrants and they cannot be waived by DHS. There are those who would prefer to disqualify a farm worker who commits even a single minor misdemeanor, with no jail time. But that goes too far. In some States, it's a misdemeanor to put trash from your home into a roadside trash can. It's a misdemeanor to park a house trailer in a roadside park, or have an unleashed dog in your car on a State highway, or go fishing without a license. If we're serious about this proposal, minor offenses like these shouldn't have such harsh consequences. We'd be severely punishing hard-working men and women for minor mistakes, and tearing these immigrant families apart. It's hard to imagine any public purpose that would be served by such a severe punishment. But it's easy to imagine all the heart-wrenching stories and nightmares created by this proposal for people caught by its provisions. Many of these farm workers have lived in America with their families for many years. They've established strong ties to their communities, paid their taxes, and contributed to our economy. They deserve better than a punishment out of all proportion to their offense. Opponents of AgJOBS also claim that it will be a magnet for further illegal immigration. Once again, they are wrong. To be eligible for the earned adjustment program, farm workers must establish that they worked in agriculture in the past. Farm workers must have entered the United States prior to October, 2004. Otherwise, they are not eligible. The magnet argument is false. New entrants who have not worked in agriculture won't qualify for this program. Hard-working migrant farm workers are essential to the success of American agriculture. We need an honest agriculture policy that recognizes the contributions of these men and women, and respects and rewards their work. Our bill will modify the current temporary foreign agricultural worker program, while preserving and enhancing key labor protections. It strikes a fair balance. Anything else would undermine the jobs, wages, and working conditions of U.S. workers. For many employers, the current program is a bureaucratic nightmare. Few of them use the program, because it is so complicated, lengthy, uncertain, and expensive. Only 40,000-50,000 guest workers are admitted each year--barely 2 to 3 percent of the estimated total agricultural work force. To deal with these problems, the bill streamlines the H-2A program's application process by making it a ``labor attestation'' program similar to the H-1B program, rather than the current ``labor certification'' program. This change will reduce paperwork for employers and accelerate processing. Employers seeking temporary workers will file an application with the Secretary of Labor containing assurances that they will comply with the program's obligations. The application will be accompanied by a job offer that the local job service office will post on an electronic job registry at least 28 days before the job begins. In addition, the employer must post the position at the work site, notify the collective bargaining representative if one exists, make reasonable efforts to contact past employees, and advertise the position in newspapers read by farm workers. Longstanding worker protections will continue in force. For example, the ``three-fourths minimum work guarantee'' will remain in effect. Employers will be required to guarantee work for at least three quarters of the employment period or pay compensation for any shortfall. The ``50% rule'' will also continue. Qualified U.S. workers would be hired as long as they apply during the first half of the season. No position could be filled by an H-2A worker that was vacant because of a strike or labor dispute. Employers will continue to reimburse workers for transportation costs and provide workers' compensation insurance coverage. Employers will be prohibited from discriminating in favor of temporary workers. The bill will modify some current requirements in important ways. Employers must provide housing at no cost, or a monetary housing allowance in which the State governor certifies that sufficient farm worker housing is available. Employers will also be required to pay at least the highest of the State or Federal minimum wage, the local ``prevailing wage'' for the particular job, or an ``adverse effect'' wage rate. For many years, the adverse effect wage rate has been vigorously debated, with most farm worker advocates arguing that the rate is too low, and most growers complaining that it is too high. The bill will freeze adverse effect wage rates for three years at the 2003 level, while studies and recommendations are made to Congress by the GAO and a special commission of experts. If Congress fails to enact an adverse effect wage rate formula within 3 years, this wage rate will be adjusted in 2006, and at the beginning of each year thereafter, based on the change in the consumer price index. The Secretary of Labor will establish an administrative complaint process to investigate and resolve complaints alleging violations under the H-2A program. Violators will be required to pay back wages, and can also be given civil money penalties and be barred from the program. In addition, the bill provides a significant new protection for H-2A workers--a private right of action in Federal court. Currently, these workers lack this right, and can seek redress in State courts only under State contract law. Such workers are also excluded from the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, which provides U.S. workers with protections and remedies in Federal court. Although the exclusion continues, our bill will permit workers to file a Federal lawsuit to enforce their wages, housing benefits, transportation cost reimbursements, minimum-work guarantee, motor vehicle safety protections, and other terms under their job offer. Our bill will also unify families. When temporary residence is granted, a farm worker's spouse and minor children will be able to remain legally in the United States, but they will not be authorized to work. When the worker becomes a permanent resident, the spouse and minor children will also gain such status. Mr. President, I have a letter from the AFL-CIO that calls AgJOBS a recent legislative compromise between farmworker advocates and agricultural employers. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator points out the part of the amendment which is asking for an estimate of the number of troops. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. This issue has come up in a number of different contexts. We are talking about an estimate. We are looking for an estimate in 6 months and 12 months and 18 months. I am just wondering whether the Senator from Illinois saw the New York Times on April 11 where General Casey, top commander in Iraq, told CNN a week ago that if all went well, ``we should be able to take some fairly substantial reductions in the size of our forces.'' And another senior military official said American forces in Iraq could drop to around 105,000 by early next year from 142,000 now. Clearly, there are estimates that are being considered. It seems that the American people would like to know what these numbers are rather than reading them in the paper. I believe that is what the purpose of the amendment is--to try to communicate to the American people what the best judgment is in terms of the troops. Estimates can vary. As authors of the amendment, we understand that. But I do thank the Senator for referring to the GAO report, the fact that the GAO report of March 14 said that U.S. Government agencies do not report reliable data on the extent to which the security forces are trained and equipped. The number of Iraqi police is unreliable, and the data does not exclude police absent from duty. All we are trying to do is to get estimates for the American people. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I agree with his conclusions. Many of us believe this will be enormously helpful in trying to establish the independent Iraq that all of us would like to see. But I thank the Senator for bringing up this matter. This follows other evidence that we have had at other times in Defense appropriations legislation, basically to provide this kind of information to the parents, to the military. We are looking for a best judgment, best estimate. Clearly, today the military is thinking in those terms. I believe we ought to have some opportunity to share that information. I thank the Senator from Illinois for offering this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for bringing up this matter on the supplemental. I welcome the opportunity to join with him and our colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, and others who support the amendment. As we have outlined, this amendment basically requires periodic reports on the progress we are making in training Iraqi security forces. The Senate is currently debating an appropriations bill that would provide $81 billion, primarily for our ongoing war effort in Iraq. This funding will bring the total U.S. bill for the war in Iraq to $192 billion--and still counting. All of us support our troops. We obviously want to do all that we can to see that they have proper equipment, vehicles, and everything else they need to protect their lives as they carry out their mission. It is scandalous that the administration has kept sending them into battle in Iraq without proper equipment. No soldier should be sent into battle unprotected. No parents should have to go in desperation to the local Wal-Mart to buy armored plates and mail them to their sons and daughters serving in Iraq. Our military is performing brilliantly under enormously difficult circumstances. But they don't want--and the American people don't want--an open-ended commitment. After all the blunders that took us into war, we need to be certain that the President has a strategy for success. The $5.7 billion in this bill for training Iraqi security forces is a key element of a successful strategy to stabilize Iraq and withdraw American military forces. The administration has spoken frequently about the need for these funds. But there has been no accountability. It is time to put some facts behind our policy, and that is what this amendment does. The administration has never really given us a straight answer about how many Iraqi security forces are adequately trained and equipped. We're obviously making progress, but it is far from clear how much. The American people deserve an honest assessment that provides the basic facts. But that is not what we're being given. According to a GAO report in March: U.S. government agencies do not report reliable data on the extent to which Iraqi security forces are trained and equipped. It goes on to say: The Departments of State and Defense no longer report on the extent to which Iraqi security forces are equipped with their required weapons, vehicles, communications, equipment, and body armor. It is clear from the administration's own statements that they are using the notorious ``fuzzy math'' tactic to avoid an honest appraisal. On February 4, 2004, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: We have accelerated the training of Iraqi security forces, now more than 200,000 strong. Then, a year later, on January 19, 2005, Secretary Condoleezza Rice said that: We think the number right now is somewhere over 120,000. On February 3, 2005, in response to questions from Senator Levin at a Senate Armed Services Hearing, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that only 40,000 Iraqi security forces are really capable. He said: 48 deployable (battalions) around the country, equals about 40,000, which is the number that can go anywhere and do anything. Obviously, we need a better accounting of how much progress is being made to train and equip effective and capable Iraqi Security forces. I am encouraged by reports from our commanders in Iraq that we are making enough progress in fighting the insurgents and training the Iraqi security forces to enable the Pentagon to plan for significant troop reductions by early next year. On March 27, General Casey, our top commander in Iraq, said, if things go well in Iraq, ``by this time next year . . . we should be able to take some fairly substantial reductions in the size of our forces.'' According to the New York Times, on Monday, senior military officials are saying American troop levels in Iraq could ``drop to around 105,000'' by early in 2006. These reports are welcome news after 2 years of war in Iraq. April 9 marked the second anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, and in these last 2 years we have paid a high price for the invasion of Iraq. America went to war in Iraq because President Bush insisted that Iraq had strong ties to al-Qaida. It did not. We went to war because President Bush insisted that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear capability. He was not. Long after the invasion of Iraq began, our teams were scouring possible sites for weapons of mass destruction. Finally, last January, 21 months after the invasion, the search was called off all together. As Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, said in a lecture last month, the United States preferred ``to believe in faith based intelligence.'' Today, American forces continue to serve bravely and with great honor in Iraq. But the war in Iraq has made it more likely--not less likely-- that we will face terrorist attacks in American cities, and not just on the streets of Baghdad. The war has clearly made us less safe and less secure. It has made the war against al-Qaida harder to win. As CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16, we have created a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq and a worldwide cause for the continuing recruitment of anti-American extremists. He said: The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists . . . Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists . . . These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries. Three and a half years after the 9/11 attacks, al-Qaida is still the gravest threat to our national security, and the war in Iraq has ominously given al-Qaida new incentives, new recruits, and new opportunities to attack us. According to CIA Director Goss, ``al-Qaida is intent on finding ways to circumvent U.S. security enhancements to strike Americans and the homeland.'' Admiral James Loy, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, also warned the Intelligence Committee about the threat from al-Qaida. He said, ``We believe that attacking the homeland remains at the top of al- Qaida's operational priority list . . . We believe that their intent remains strong for attempting another major operation here.'' The danger was also emphasized by Robert Mueller, the FBI Director, who told the Intelligence Committee, ``The threat posed by international terrorism, and in particular from al-Qaida and related groups, continues to be the gravest we face.'' He said, ``al-Qaida continues to adapt and move forward with its desire to attack the United States using any means at its disposal. Their intent to attack us at home remains--and their resolve to destroy America has never faltered.'' In addition to taking the focus off the real war on terror--the war against al-Qaida--the war in Iraq has cost us greatly in human terms. Since the invasion began, we have lost more than 1500 servicemen and women. More than 11,500 have been wounded. That's the equivalent of a full Army division, and we only have 10 active divisions in the entire army. Despite recent progress, since the Iraqi elections in January we have still lost more than one soldier a day. We need to train the Iraqis for the stability of Iraq. But we also need to train them because our current level of deployment is not sustainable. Our military has been stretched to the breaking point, with threats in other parts of the world ever-present. As the Defense Science Board told Secretary Rumsfeld last September, ``Current and projected force structure will not sustain our current and projected global stabilization commitments.'' LTG John Riggs said it clearly: ``I have been in the Army 39 years, and I've never seen the Army as stretched in that 39 years as I have today.'' A full 32 percent of our military has already served two or more tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. That fact makes it harder for us to respond to threats elsewhere in the world. The war has also undermined the Guard and Reserve. Forty percent of the troops in Iraq are Guard or Reservists, and we are rapidly running out of available soldiers who can be deployed. The average tour for reservists recalled to active duty is now 320 days, close to a year. In the first Gulf War, it was 156 days; in Bosnia and Kosovo, 200 days. In December, General James Helmley, the head of the Army Reserves warned that the Reserve ``is rapidly degenerating into a `broken' force'' and ``is in grave danger of being unable to meet other operational requirements.'' The families of our military, Guard and Reserves are also suffering. Troops in Iraq are under an order that prevents them ever from leaving active duty when their term of service is over. A survey by the Defense Department last May found that reservists, their spouses, their families, and their employers are less supportive now of their remaining in the military than they were a year ago. The war has clearly undermined the Pentagon's ability to attract new recruits and retain those already serving. In March, the active duty Army fell short of its recruiting goal by a full 32 percent. Every month this year, the Marines have missed their recruiting goal. The last time that happened was July 1995. The Army Reserves are being hit especially hard. In March, it missed a recruiting goal by almost half, falling short by 46 percent. To deal with its recruiting problems, the Army National Guard has increased retention bonuses from $5,000 to $15,000 and first-time signing bonuses from $6000 to $10,000. The Pentagon has raised the maximum age for Army National Guard recruits from 34 to 39. Without these changes, according to General Steven Blum, Chief of the Army National Guard, ``The Guard will be broken and not ready the next time it's needed, either here at home or for war.'' We all hope for the best in Iraq. We all want democracy to take root firmly and irrevocably. Our men and women in uniform, and the American people deserve to know that the President has a strategy for success. They want to know how long it will take to train the Iraqi security forces to ably defend their own country so American men and women will no longer have to die in Iraq. They want to know when we will have achieved our mission, and when our soldiers will be able to come home with dignity and honor. At a March 1 hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Abizaid, the leader of the Central Command, gave the clearest indication so far about when our mission might end. General Abizaid said, ``I believe that in 2005, the most important statement that we should be able to make is that in the majority of the country, Iraqi security forces will take the lead in fighting the counterinsurgency. That is our goal.'' Speaking about the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, General Abizaid said, ``I think in 2005 they'll take on the majority of the tasks necessary to be done.'' That's this year. On March 27, General Casey, commanding General of the Multi-National Force in Iraq said, ``By this time next year . . . assuming that the political process continues to go positively . . . and the Iraqi army continues to progress and develop as we think it will, we should be able to take some fairly substantial reductions in the size of our forces.'' Our troops are clearly still needed to deal with the insurgency. Just as clearly, we need an effective training program to enable the Iraqis to be self-reliant. But there is wide agreement that the presence of American troops fuels the insurgency. If the Iraqis make significant progress this year, it is perfectly logical to expect that more American troops will be able to return home. Shortly after the elections in Iraq in January, the administration announced that 15,000 American troops that were added to provide security for the elections would return. Additional reductions in our military presence, as Iraqis are trained to take over those functions, would clearly help take the American face off the occupation and send a clearer signal to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country. In US News and World Report in February, General Abizaid emphasized this basic point. He said ``An overbearing presence, or a larger than acceptable footprint in the region, works against you . . . The first thing you say to yourself is that you have to have the local people help themselves.'' Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz stated in a hearing at the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 3, ``I have talked to some of our commanders in the area. They believe that over the course of the next six months you will see whole areas of Iraq successfully handed over to the Iraqi army and Iraqi police.'' Today 2 of those 6 months have passed, and all of us hope that we are on track to meet his goal. Before the election in Iraq in January, the administration repeatedly stated that 14 of the 18 provinces in Iraq are safe. We heard a similar view in a briefing from Ambassador Negroponte earlier this year. If some areas can soon be turned over to the Iraqis, as Secretary Wolfowitz indicated, it should be done. It would be a powerful signal to the Iraqi people that the United States is not planning a permanent occupation of their country. If entire areas are being turned over to the Iraqis, we should be able to bring more American troops home. We know the road ahead will be difficult, because the violence is far from ended. The President's commitment to keeping American troops in Iraq as long as it takes and not a day longer is not enough for our soldiers and their loved ones. They deserve a clearer indication of what lies ahead, and so do the American people. President Bush should be able to tell us how much progress--how much real progress--we are making in training the Iraqi security forces. Our amendment asks for specific information on that progress, if it's happening. President Bush should be able to tell us how many American soldiers he expects will still be in Iraq 6 months from now, 12 months from now, 18 months from now. General Abizaid and other military officials have begun to provide clarification of that very important issue, and I hope the President will as well. Our amendment contributes significantly to that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I applaud the Senator from West Virginia for his amendment. We have to put a stop to all of the taxpayer- financed propaganda put out by our government to influence the American people. Over the last year, we have found out that the Bush administration has used taxpayer funds to finance ``fake news reports'' by actors posing as reporters, not actual journalists, who read the administration's script on prescription drugs and the No Child Left Behind education program. Even more recently, we have found out that a number of actual real-life journalists have been secretly paid by the Bush administration to promote its political agenda. This is dangerous to our democracy. It's an unethical misuse of taxpayer funds. Senator Lautenberg and I have generated a series of investigations by the Government Accountability Office critical of the Bush administration's propaganda efforts. We have introduced legislation, the Stop Government Propaganda Act, that the Byrd amendment complements. Our legislation, like the Byrd amendment, specifically prevents the administration--any administration, Democratic or Republican--from paying actors to pose as legitimate journalists in order to push for a political agenda. I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment. Congress cannot sit still while the administration corrupts the first amendment and freedom of the press.