John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I am aware of that.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. It undermines both the intention and the spirit of this bill. The amendment would not only treat future workers as less than American workers, it would treat them as less than all other immigrant workers. The real issue is--I will get right to it--after many long months and weeks and hours of negotiation, we had a proposal that passed through the Judiciary Committee and then a compromise, thanks to Senators Hagel and Martinez, basically establishing the framework for a compromise in the Senate. If this amendment should pass, that whole compromise is destroyed because a fundamental part of that compromise was that those who have been here for 2 to 5 years, after having gone back to a port of embarkation, would then be eligible for temporary work under the temporary worker program, and then over time be eligible for green card status and citizenship. This amendment would destroy that compromise. I understand very well why the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Alabama on the floor of the Senate, and others, have been opposed to this bill from the beginning. I understand that and I appreciate it and I respect it. But let's have no doubt about what this amendment would do. It would destroy the entire carefully crafted compromise. Now, the Senator from Texas has an interesting theory about people who would want to come here and only work and then go back, or maybe not go back, but not have any opportunity for citizenship. We have examples today in Europe of the situation that the Senator from Texas and my colleague from Arizona would want to create, which is having people living in your country with no hope to ever be a part of that society. I would remind my colleagues of what happened not long ago in France. There were thousands of young Muslims who were burning cars everywhere and rioting and demonstrating because they had no hope and no opportunity. Why is it that all over Europe you find these enclaves of foreign workers who are totally and completely separate from society? Because they are in the situation which this amendment would dictate: No hope, no job, no opportunity, no future, but we will let you work. This is not what we do with highly skilled workers. That is not what we do under various other programs, and especially for those who have already been here between 2 and 5 years under this very carefully crafted compromise, the Hagel-Martinez compromise, as it is called, embodied. I understand why the Senator from Texas or the Senator from Arizona would oppose that. They oppose the very principles upon which the legislation was based and the Hagel-Martinez compromise was shaped. The Senator from Alabama is on this floor constantly against virtually every aspect of the bill. I understand that. But I want my colleagues who are voting to understand that if this amendment would pass, this whole compromise and this whole legislation collapses because it removes a fundamental principle of this legislation, which is that we give people an opportunity to earn citizenship, which is exactly what the 2- to 5-year part of the compromise under the Hagel-Martinez proposal represents. If you are here between 2 to 5 years, you have to go to a port of embarkation, you come back, you take part in a temporary worker program, and then over time you obtain eligibility for a green card, and ultimately citizenship. That is what America has been all about: people coming here and having the opportunity to obtain citizenship. So we have a fundamental disagreement. I hope all of my colleagues will recognize that passage of this amendment would cause the entire bill to collapse, which we have been working on now for a week with excellent debate and good votes, and I think the way the Senate should function. So I hope that everybody understands exactly the implication of this amendment, and I understand and respect the view that is held by my colleagues who support this amendment. But I want all of my colleagues to understand the impact of passage of this amendment. It undermines not only the principles of the bill but, in my view, the principles of what this Nation should be and is all about today. We have talked many times about people who live in the shadows, the people who don't have the benefits of our citizenship, or an opportunity to become citizens, these 11 million people who are living in the shadows. If this amendment would pass, I can assure you we would keep several million in the shadows because they would never come out of the shadows because they would never want to return to their country and never be able to be on a path to citizenship. So from a principled viewpoint and, frankly, from a practical viewpoint, this amendment is unacceptable. I know the hour is late. I know a lot of my colleagues are not paying as much attention, perhaps, as they would at other hours of the day, but I hope we make it very clear that the passage of this amendment would cause the entire legislation to implode, and we would then be obviously in a position where we could probably not pass meaningful legislation that would entail comprehensive immigration reform, which is what the President has espoused and what I believe the overwhelming majority of the Senate has proved in numerous votes this week that we support. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in a moment of seriousness, what is the parliamentary situation? How much time on either side?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to tell my colleagues that we had some good-faith negotiations with Senator Cornyn. I am sorry I was unable to talk to him before this vote. I know he had a previous engagement down at the White House. But the Kennedy amendment will probably be a side- by-side since there are still areas of the Cornyn amendment we have difficulty agreeing to. So I wish I could have talked with Senator Cornyn since I think our differences are minimal, but we still have not resolved them. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the manager yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. How soon does the manager anticipate voting on Kyl- Cornyn?

Mr. McCAIN. Then I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10 minutes, taken from the time of the opposition to the amendment, which is the time of the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to point out that we spent the better part of yesterday negotiating with Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn, along with Senator Kennedy and others, a group of us. We have been trying to modify the original Kyl-Cornyn amendment so that it would be broadly acceptable. I think we have succeeded, thanks to the goodwill of all parties concerned. Fundamentally, the purpose, which we are all in agreement with, is we don't want people who are convicted felons or criminals guilty of crimes to be eligible for citizenship in this country. We have enough problems without opening up that avenue. Yet, at the same time, we didn't want to go too far to exclude people from eligibility for citizenship who, frankly, may have committed incidental crimes or the crime was associated with their attempt to enter this country. For example, in order to obtain asylum, when people flee oppressive and repressive regimes in which their lives are at risk, and they had to use a bogus or counterfeit document in order to expedite their entrance into this country, of course, we don't think that should make them ineligible for citizenship or application for citizenship. I think we have reached a careful balance. There are categories of people under conditions of extreme hardship or danger who are seeking asylum and would be exempted, but at the same time the thrust of the Kyl-Cornyn amendment, which is the prevention of people who have committed felonies and numbers of misdemeanors and other crimes would not be eligible for a path to citizenship as outlined in the legislation that would apply to the others who have not committed crimes. I am aware there is some concern about this on both sides of this issue. I want to assure everyone that this is the product of a long, arduous series of negotiations and discussions among all involved in this issue. I hope there is an understanding that we have come up with what most of us think is a reasonable compromise to address very legitimate concerns on both sides. People who are fleeing oppression may have used a bogus document, and on the other side of the coin, obviously, someone who has committed serious crimes or a series of misdemeanors we would not want to have them eligible for citizenship. I thank Senators Kyl, Cornyn, Kennedy, and others who have actively negotiated and come up with what we agree is a reasonable compromise. By the way, that is the trademark of the progress of this legislation. That gives me optimism that we will be able to successfully conclude it in a reasonable period of time. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my friend from Louisiana. Of course, it is not amnesty. Of course, it is not amnesty. I urge my colleagues, as well as specifically my colleague from Louisiana--next time up, I am going to bring a dictionary out here to confirm the definition of the word ``amnesty.'' The definition of the word ``amnesty'' is forgiveness. We did that in the 1980s and it didn't work. And to call the process that we require under this legislation amnesty, frankly, distorts the debate and is an unfair interpretation of it. I might add that the President of the United States, in a very powerful statement to the American people, called it what it is, and that is earned citizenship. Now, I understand why the opponents of what we are trying to do would call it amnesty. That is a great idea. Call it amnesty. Call it a banana, if you want to. But the fact is that it is earned citizenship. The reason why the opponents of this legislation keep calling it amnesty is because they know that in poll after poll after poll, the majority of the American people say let them earn their citizenship. And when it is explained to the American people what we are requiring: A criminal background check, payment of back taxes, payment of a $2,000 fine, 5 or 6 years before getting in line behind everyone else in order to get a green card and then another 5 years or more, depending on how this legislation comes out, before eligibility for citizenship, it is a perversion of the word ``amnesty.'' Frankly, I am growing a little weary of it. I am growing a little weary of it. We ought to be debating this issue on its merits and only on the merits and not by labeling it something it is not. Again, the definition of amnesty is forgiveness--forgiveness. We are not forgiving anything. We are trying to find the best option--the best option--for an untenable situation bred by 40 or 50 years of failed Government policies. What are the options we have with these 11 million or 12 million people? What are the options? One is the status quo. No one believes that the status quo is acceptable, to have 11 million or 12 million people washing around America's society with no protection of our laws, no accountability, no identity. It is terrible for America and our society. I believe the sponsors of this amendment and those of us who vehemently oppose it, because basically it guts the entire proposal, including the fact it is in direct contradiction to the leader of our party, the position of the President of the United States on it--but having said that, the status quo, I think my friend from Louisiana would agree, is unacceptable. So what is the other option? The other option is to round up 11 million people and find some way to transport them back to the country from which they came. Many of them have been here since yesterday. Some of them have been here 50 or 60 years. Some of them have children who are fighting in Iraq. I am not interested--I wonder if the Senator from Louisiana is interested--in calling a soldier in Iraq and saying: By the way, while you are fighting today, we are deporting your parents. I don't think we want to do that. I don't think we want to do that. And by the way, the columnist George Will pointed out the other day it would take some 200,000 buses from San Diego to Alaska in order to transport these people at least back to Mexico, and then I don't know how you get them back to other places. So here we are with the option of the status quo, rounding up 11 million or 12 million people, or making it very clear that because they have broken our laws, they must pay a very severe penalty--a very severe penalty. And according to the Hagel-Martinez compromise, those people who have been here less than 5 years will have to go back. And in the case of 2 to 5 years, they will have to go back to a port of embarkation. If they have been here since January 1, 2004, then they have to go back completely--completely. If they have been here more than 5 years, then obviously we have given them a way to earn citizenship. We passed an amendment that we supported that was the Kyl-Cornyn amendment, supported by me and Senator Graham and Senator Kennedy and others, that would prevent felons from ever being on the path to citizenship. So what does that say? What this proposal now says is anyone who came here innocently, who came here to work, which is the reason why the overwhelming majority of them did, will have a chance to earn their citizenship. And every time--every time--that the word ``amnesty'' is mentioned, I am going to try to get back on the floor and refute that because the description in no way fits the word. So here we are now with a comprehensive approach to immigration reform which, probably, according to at least most polls, the American people are, overall, supportive of, and a President of the United States who gave what I think is one of the finest speeches of his presidency on this issue, and we are now considering an amendment which would fundamentally gut the entire proposal. I want to quote from the President, again: It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law: To pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship, but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have described is not amnesty. It is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen. I could not say it better than what the President of the United States says. Fundamentally, Americans are decent, humane, wonderful people, and they recognize that these are human beings. They recognize that 99 percent of these people came here because they couldn't work, feed their families and themselves where they came from. As former President John F. Kennedy wrote, we are a nation of immigrants. We are all a nation of immigrants. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the words that were written back in the early 1960s by then-President Kennedy and that apply to the world today. It has a unique and very timely application. I intend to read from it as we proceed with the consideration of this bill. I understand that there are differing viewpoints about how to handle this issue of illegal immigration. There is no State that has been more burdened with the consequences of illegal immigration than mine. We have broken borders. We have shootouts on our freeways. We have safe houses where people are jammed in, in the most inhumane conditions. We have the coyotes who take someone across the border and say: Tucson is right over the hill. And more and more people every year are dying in the desert. We understand that. That's why we understand that there has to be a comprehensive approach to this issue and only a comprehensive approach will reach the kind of resolution to this issue which has plagued our Nation and, frankly, my State of Arizona, for a long period of time. I hope my colleagues will understand that this is basically an eviscerating amendment we are considering. Have no doubt about it. If you agree with the President of the United States and the majority of Americans--poll after poll shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that we should allow people who are here illegally, after a certain period of time, to earn their citizenship--then you will vote against this amendment. If you believe that the only answer to our immigration problem is to build a bigger wall, then I would argue you are not totally aware of the conditions of the human heart and that is that all people, wherever they are, who are created equal, have the same ambitions for themselves and their families and their children and their grandchildren that we did and our forebears did. Our forebears, whether they came with the Mayflower or whether they came yesterday, all have the same yearnings to breathe free. I hope my colleagues will understand the implications of this amendment. I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will understand the implications for the Republican Party of this kind of an amendment. Because what this is saying to millions and millions of people who have come here is: I am sorry, you are leaving. I hope we can appeal to the better angels of our nature and turn down this amendment and move forward with a comprehensive solution to this terrible problem that plagues our Nation. I believe my time has expired.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in response to my friend from Massachusetts, the Kennedy-McCain bill was a subject of long negotiations. And for more than a year, many of these issues were discussed with us and others. We felt that one of the most important aspects of this legislation was the protection of workers. One of the reasons why illegal immigration is so evil--one aspect you don't hear so much about is the terrible treatment and exploitation by cruel people of innocent people. A year ago last August, I believe, a policeman in Phoenix opened the door of a horse trailer and 73 people were packed inside, and one was a 4-month-old child. Often, the Senator from Massachusetts and I have discussed what it is like to die in the desert. Every year, every summer more people die. They are not coming--99 percent of them, according to the Border Patrol--to do evil things but to work. Why are there jobs? Because there are jobs that Americans will not fill. My response to the Senator from Massachusetts is that no one should be under the misunderstanding that this is another Bracero Program. The Bracero Program died because of the abuses associated with it. This gives them a status not of citizenship but of equal protection under the law. Any human being who resides in the United States should not be subject to exploitation and cruelty. That is the nature of America. We don't say in America that only citizens have the protections of our laws. We say anyone who comes to our country does, too. So, finally, I want to say to my friend from Massachusetts that this is a fundamental part of this legislation, as he knows. If you take this out, you will then be face with the exact same economic pressures that we have been experiencing in the past. And as much as I believe in technology and as much as I think walls are important and UAVs and all that, there has never been a case in history where you have been able to stop people from doing something that has to do with their very existence. That is the way many people feel who come here.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Kyl and Cornyn for this amendment. I thank them for the intense discussions and negotiations for which we have been able to get widespread support for this amendment; also, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, on the other side of the aisle. Senator Cornyn and Senator Kyl have focused attention very appropriately on one who is convicted of a crime, who would more likely, obviously, commit another crime. That is not what this bill is all about. I think these efforts bear fruit in this amendment, and they seek to bar the potentially dangerous criminal alien from taking advantage of this program. The amendment specifically addresses individuals who have been convicted of one felony or three misdemeanors. It also addresses those who have just ignored our laws and thumbed their nose at our judicial system. But thanks to these negotiations, we allow individuals who may have been caught up in an unjust and unfair system to apply for a waiver and possibly have their cases reconsidered. I believe that ultimately this amendment makes the bill better and our country safer. I wish to again thank Senators Kyl and Cornyn for their willingness to negotiate some questions that we had about a very small aspect of this bill. I think it preserves the very important intent of the Kyl- Cornyn amendment--that we will never allow people who have committed felonies or crimes to be eligible for citizenship in this country. I thank them for their efforts in this direction. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will have a chance to examine this amendment overnight, and perhaps we could dispense with it early in the morning. There are a number of amendments on our side. I am told there are a number of amendments on the other side. I think we have made good progress today in addressing some of the major issues, but obviously we need to move forward. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will see fit to have a vote as quickly as possible so we can move on to other amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I agree with the Senator. Interestingly enough, if I can mention again, the President of the United States, having served as Governor of the State of Texas, understands this issue very well. He made a very important point last night because all elements of this problem must be addressed together or none of them will be solved at all. The President is exactly right. None of these problems can be solved unless we have a comprehensive approach to this legislation. Again, Mr. President, I say to my friend from Massachusetts, briefly, that we still have a terrible problem of drugs flowing across our border. If we had the guest worker program that we have talked about in this legislation, then there would be people who are coming for jobs, and we could focus our effort and attention on the drug dealers who are now corrupting America's youth. I thank the Senator and, again, I hope my colleagues realize the implication of this vote because if we did take it out, then obviously--at least in the view of most experts that I know--the rest of the reforms would not be either applicable or enforceable. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the Senator from Pennsylvania for his continued leadership and incredible effort on this issue. He has invested thousands of hours, and I continue to appreciate the great job he is doing. I also congratulate the President of the United States for his remarks last night. It is pretty obvious that his remarks were well received. He gave an outstanding depiction not only of the situation in the United States but the need for us to act. As he said near the end of his remarks: Tonight I want to speak directly to Members of the House and Senate. An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive because all elements of this problem must be addressed together or none of them will be solved at all. The President's comments are exactly right: All elements of this problem must be addressed together or none of them will be solved at all. He went on to say: The House has passed an immigration bill. The Senate should act by the end of the month so we can work out the differences. . . . The Senator from North Dakota, my friend, keeps talking about how the 1986 amnesty didn't work. It obviously didn't work. The reason it didn't work is because there wasn't a guest worker program, which is exactly what the Senator from North Dakota is trying to remove from the bill which then would give us 1986 all over again. More importantly, there are certain realities in America today that we are trying to address. Among them, that the American population is growing older. The baby boomers are retiring and leaving in their wake a number of jobs that need to be filled. Restaurants are locking their doors because there is no one to serve the food or clear dishes. Today, fruit is rotting on the vine and lettuce is dying in the fields because farmers can't find workers to harvest the crops. Why do we need a viable guest worker program? So that we can stop the flood of illegals from coming across our borders, so we can make the present incentive that brings people to cross our borders illegally come to a halt. How do we do that? Our proposal says if an employer advertises a job for 60 days over the Internet, in a broad variety of ways, and no American comes forward to take that job, then a willing worker and a willing employer can join together in a contract that that person can come and work and fill that job that it has already been proven an American won't take. If that person continues to work in the United States, he is allowed to remain in the United States under our proposal. An equally important aspect is that those who are now south of our border or anywhere else in the world will recognize that even if they cross our border illegally and are able to do so, there will be no job for them because the person who has entered into that contract has a tamper-proof biometric visa, and that is the only document that will be recognized as a valid document in order for someone to obtain employment. So if someone does cross our border illegally, gets a job--one, he shouldn't get it because he doesn't have that contract but, two, if an employer hires that individual, then, of course, that employer should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It is not an exact parallel, but let me remind colleagues, about 15 years ago we declared a war on drugs. All of us, we were going to stop the flow of drugs from coming across our border and destroying America. Any objective observer will tell you that our progress has been limited, if at all successful. Why? Because there is still a demand for drugs, and they are coming across our borders. People are using them, and there is still a demand. There is a demand for workers in this country. And these people are coming across our borders, both northern and southern--we seem to concentrate so much of our attention on the southern border, but they are coming across both borders--to feed themselves and their families which they can't do where they are. I would be glad to discuss the failure of the Mexican Government to enforce their border, including their southern border, the need for us to work more cooperatively, the corruption problems, all of the issues that are associated with the issue of people coming across our border. But I predict, even if we had the best cooperation from the Mexican Government, people who can't feed themselves and their families where they are would still try to come to this country to get jobs. And if you can prove that there are jobs that no American will take, why not have a process, a system where someone can come and take it and work? There are very few of my colleagues who would deny that the overwhelming majority of people who come to this country are honest, God-fearing, hard-working people, some of whom, by the way, have died in the desert in an effort to come, a larger number every year in the Arizona desert. Their only desire is to better themselves and provide better lives for themselves and their families. There are all kinds of other benefits associated with this, as well. One of the reasons why workers come to this country today and stay is because it is so difficult to move back and forth to the families and the homes they came from. If they have a tamper-proof visa, then, of course, on their vacations or even at the completion of their work, they would feel comfortable in returning to the place where they came from. But now, with the difficulty of crossing back and forth over the border, more and more of them remain here, and sometimes there is a criminal element. Let me make another point. With illegal immigration, with transportation of people across the border who are coming across illegally, terrible things are happening. We have the coyotes who mistreat them, the coyotes who sometimes hold them captive and demand more and more money. There are shootouts on our freeways in Arizona. No State in America understands how terrible this issue is more than the citizens of my State because over half of the people crossing the border illegally are coming across the Arizona Sonora Desert. It is terrible what is going on. The exploitation and the mistreatment of these people who are honest, who are God's children, is terrible. If we could have a viable guest worker program, one that we could enforce, then you would lose this incredible attraction that draws people illegally into our country and, of course, all of the associated bad aspects of it that the citizens of my State of Arizona are so intimately familiar with. Of course, it frustrates citizens. Of course, it frustrates the citizens of my State to have so many hundreds of millions of dollars in uncompensated health care costs, to have law enforcement requirements and expenses go up, to have all of the problems associated with illegal immigration. But to say somehow that we are not going to satisfy what is clearly, primarily economic immigration--by the way, the Border Patrol statistics say 99 percent of those attempting to cross our Nation's border illegally are ``economic immigrants''--then we are going to be faced with a problem. No wall, no barrier, no sensor, no barbed wire will ever stop people from trying to do what is a basic yearning of human beings all over the world, and that is to have better lives for themselves and their families. I hope and believe we will reject the Dorgan amendment. As the Senator from Alabama said, he wants to go back and start over. There are a number of us who have invested years in this issue. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his continued leadership. By the way, all of us are very grateful that he survived a very serious aircraft emergency recently. We are glad that he is well and with us. I hope we will reject the amendment. I hope we will then move on to other amendments and within a relatively short period of time resolve most of the controversial aspects of this legislation. Finally, I thank the President of the United States for what was greeted, as we know from the overnight polls, very favorably by the American people, his support of a comprehensive resolution of this terrible issue that afflicts our Nation, that of illegal immigration. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Suicide Prevention Programs and their Application in Indian Country. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Indian Education. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I will not object if the Senator from Louisiana will add to that unanimous consent request that this will be the last amendment considered?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike $74.5 million for grants to States based on their production of certain types of crops, livestock, and dairy products, which were not included in the administration's emergency supplemental request. Let me point out again a statement of administration policy where it says: The administration is seriously concerned at the overall funding level and the numerous unrequested items included in the Senate bill that are unrelated to the war or emergency hurricane relief needs. Obviously, this and others have been put into this bill in a very unacceptable fashion. It has been a longstanding policy in the Senate to prohibit the practice of adding authorizing language to an appropriations bill. Nevertheless, this bill includes a massive $3.94 billion agricultural assistance program. None of this funding under this agricultural title is included in the administration's supplemental request. Interestingly, this nearly $4 billion add-on, title III of the underlying bill--remember, this is a $4 billion add-on--received a one- paragraph mention in the entire committee report accompanying the bill; one paragraph to describe 31 pages of legislative language with a $4 billion price tag. Let me read it for the benefit of my colleagues. The committee recommends $3.944 billion for emergency agriculture disaster assistance. These funds will help farmers and ranchers in States affected by recent hurricanes, drought, flood, wildfire and other natural disasters recover from resulting production losses. These funds will also assist in the removal of debris from watersheds in order to minimize the threat of flooding from future storm events. In addition, the funds will provide economic assistance to producers to compensate for high energy costs relating to agricultural production. That last sentence is interesting. This will help farmers who have high energy costs related to agricultural production. I wonder what we are doing for the airlines, the trains, the American automobile owner, any other industry in America. We aren't doing anything for them in this emergency supplemental, but we are going to give the farmers nearly $4 billion additional. I am all for helping the appropriate farmers and other victims battered by hurricanes, but the agricultural assistance added in this bill is far more expansive than merely offering to help areas hit by the 2005 hurricanes, and at least the limited report language doesn't hide that fact. As my colleagues know, the USDA currently has a range of disaster assistance programs, including crop insurance programs, that are already available. Yet this bill is going to add nearly $4 billion on top of the existing programs. In my view, the agricultural assistance funding is being used more as a vehicle to fill a voter wish list than it is to meet the urgent needs of the victims of the 2005 hurricane season. Taxpayer dollars are being allocated for agricultural subsidies and bailouts which in some cases have nothing to do with hurricane recovery. This recovery would strike an earmark which provides $74.5 million in agricultural assistance for grants to States, based not on the hurricane damage, not on any emergency, but based on their production of ``specialty of crops, livestock and dairy products.'' Why is this necessary? Have the hurricanes wiped out the specialty crop industry? What even is a specialty crop, and why does it need $74.5 million of taxpayer funding? I hope that a specialty crop is a money tree because that is what is going to be needed to pay for this bill. My colleagues may be interested to know that the bill defines specialty crops as anything but wheat, feedgrains, oilseeds, cotton, rice or peanuts--anything but. Why do we exclude those commodities from receiving this funding? Is sugarcane made ineligible? Are my colleagues aware that the USDA already has a specialty crop block grant program which was authorized in 2004? Under the existing program, specialty crops are defined as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops including floriculture. The program is funded at $17 million for the current fiscal year, and it provides for $100,000 for each State that applies. Is there a problem with that program that I am not aware of that gives it just cause to providing it with an emergency supplemental appropriation to the tune of more than 1,000 percent above its annual appropriation? This bill provides $74.5 million that is to be used to award grants based on ``the share of each State's total value of specialty crop, livestock, and dairy production of the United States for the 2004 crop- year, multiplied by $74.5 million. That means the more you produce, if your crops have not been hit by a natural disaster or flooding or drought, the more money you get. That is the polar opposite of what the USDA disaster assistance programs are about. Doesn't that fly in the face of what an emergency supplemental is for? An emergency supplemental is supposed to be about addressing needs and not about providing rewards for productivity. More importantly, why is what obviously is designed to be a nationwide agricultural funding assistance program, a program not requested by the administration, singled out in the statement of administration policy as objectionable, being included in a must-pass emergency spending bill that is supposed to address the global war on terror and hurricane recovery? My colleagues may be interested to know that under this legislation, States can use the grant to ``promote the purchase, sale or consumption of agricultural products.'' I am not making this up. I am not making this up. Under this emergency supplemental bill, States can use the grant to ``promote the purchase, sale, or consumption of agricultural products.'' Last week, I mentioned that Federal dollars had been used to paint salmon on airplanes. Maybe that $74.5 million will be used to paint vegetables on airplanes or maybe a pretty flower. Upon closer reading of the legislative language, I notice that the bill actually creates a $100 million program for specialty crops. In addition to the $74.5 million that this amendment addresses, it provides for $25.5 million to make grants to ``the several States, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, to be used to support activities that promote agriculture.'' I would like to repeat that for my colleagues: ``$25.5 million to make grants to the several States, the District of Columbia. . . .'' I admire and respect the District of Columbia enormously. I know of no agricultural enterprise--well, maybe an illegal one, but I never knew of an agricultural enterprise in the District of Columbia. But they are going to be eligible for grants to be used to ``support activities that promote agriculture.'' As I say, I am not making this up. I hope the sponsors of the legislation will correct me if I am wrong. I would like to be corrected if I am wrong. I am confident they will. But it appears that with respect to the $25.5 million funding, the bill provides that all 50 States will each receive $500,000 of that money, while Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia each will receive $250,000. What specialty crops are grown in the District of Columbia? What specialty crops are grown here? What kind of campaign should we expect? The funding is not needed. It should be noted that, according to OMB, ``In 2005, many crops had record or near record production, and the U.S. farm sector cash receipts were second highest ever.'' Can an unrequested $74.4 million grant program truly be sold as an urgent emergency spending needed at this time? I know my colleagues have the highest hopes for the success and safety of our troops and for the speedy recovery of the hurricane-ravaged gulf. But when the American people hear of these special interest riders, they are going to question their priorities, and rightly so. Again, I would like to refer to this poll. A 39-percent plurality of Americans, in a poll the day before yesterday, say the single most important thing for Congress to accomplish this year is curtailing budgetary earmarks benefiting only certain constituents. This amendment certainly fits that concern that Americans have. I was going to come back and talk before we voted on this bill. I am sure this amendment will be voted down, again, because others have that are similarly outrageous. But I want to say, we are sending a very bad message to the American people. I saw recent polls showing our approval rating at around 22 percent. I am glad to see that there are now some candidates who are running for office against pork barrel projects and earmarks and museums, taking that out of highway funds. They are sick and tired of seeing their children's futures mortgaged by this rampant, out-of-control spending. I will vote against this bill. When the President vetoes it, which I am reasonably confident he will, I will vote to sustain his veto. I believe that once the President vetoes this bill, the American people will strongly support that veto and that the American people will demand that we bring some kind of sanity to this system where, in the name of recovery from hurricane damage, and in the name of funding the war in Iraq, we spend billions--not millions, not hundreds of millions but billions--on unwanted and unnecessary products. I want to assure my colleagues that I will support anything to help repair the damage caused by the hurricanes. I will do what is necessary to spend my taxpayers' dollars to fight and win the war in Iraq, which I still strongly believe is a noble cause, but I cannot go back to my constituents in Arizona and say that this is anything but a shameful exercise we are engaged in by taking their tax dollars in the name of an emergency and spending them on those projects, many of which we have discussed and debated at some length. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to say that Senator Inouye and I have been friends for many years. I believe the process we are doing--obviously, when I see billions and billions of dollars added to an emergency supplemental--is inappropriate and, of course, I in no way would want to--in no manner would I want to offend my friend, Mr. Inouye. If my remarks did so, I apologize for doing so. I yield the floor.