John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 499 to the desk.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague along the Chesapeake Bay, Senator Mikulski. This amendment would make minor, temporary changes to the non- immigrant, seasonal visa program known as the H-2B visa program. This program allows small businesses in the Commonwealth of Virginia to hire temporary workers for non-agricultural jobs. As many of my colleagues know that for each fiscal year, which starts on October 1, there has been a statutory limitation on the number of admissions to the U.S. under the H-2B visa category since 1990. In 2004, the statutory cap of 66,000 H-2B visas was reached on March 9. This year the H-2B cap was reached much earlier on January 3. As a result of reaching this cap for the second year in a row, many businesses, mostly summer employers, have been unable to obtain the temporary workers they need because the cap was filled prior to the day they could even apply for the visas. Consequently, these businesses have and will continue to sustain significant economic losses unless Congress acts. Our amendment helps fix this problem by making common-sense reforms to our H-2B visa program that will allow our small and seasonal companies an opportunity to remain open for business. First, the bill would reward good workers and employers. Those workers who have faithfully abided by the law for one of the past 3 years would be exempted from the cap. This exemption will help keep together workers and employers who have had a successful track record of working together. Second, the bill would make sure that the Government agencies processing the H-2B visas have the resources they need to detect and prevent fraud. Starting on October 1, 2005, employers participating in the program would pay an additional fee that would be placed in a Fraud Prevention and Detection account. The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Labor could use these funds to educate and train their employees to prevent and detect fraudulent visas. Finally, the bill would implement a visa allocation system that would be fair for all employers. Half of the 66,000 visas would be reserved for employers needing workers in the winter and the other half would be reserved for companies needing workers for the summer. This provision would allow both winter employers and summer employers an equal chance to obtain the workers they desperately need. Without these modifications, these employers will continue to struggle in their efforts to find the necessary employees to keep their businesses running. Many in the seafood industry in Virginia have come to my office, looked me straight in the eye, and told me that their businesses are not going to make it another year if something is not done soon. Only through passage of this amendment can this detrimental cycle be interrupted and these businesses can be saved. Unfortunately, the only real opposition to this legislation is ``perception.'' I have the utmost respect for those in this Chamber that may not fully support this amendment. Their perception on this matter stems from good principles. Illegal immigration has grown to be a substantial problem in this country, especially in the area of domestic security, and I agree that changes must be made to make our policy work. However, the temporary changes this amendment proposes does not belong in the debate on immigration or illegal immigration. The H-2B program is a seasonal, non-immigrant worker visa program. In fact, it may be one of the last programs we have to provide a legal, seasonal workforce for our small businesses, allowing them to fill the gaps where domestic workers cannot be found. More importantly, these changes do not belong in the immigration debate because they deal with an economic issue. Over 75 percent of net new jobs in this country come from small businesses. This amendment proposes changes to help save our small businesses. In many parts of the country, for every temporary H-2B worker that is hired, two more full-time domestic workers are sustained. There are some criticisms of this program which I am sure some will raise. Let's take a moment and examine some of these mis-perceptions surrounding the H-2B program. H-2B employers do not do enough to recruit U.S. workers. They could just pay more. Virginia employers have not found this to be the case. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor set stringent guidelines on recruitment and wages. First, U.S. employers must prove that they have exhausted all opportunities to hire U.S. workers. One H-2B employer agent in Virginia, who assists employers in this process, have told me that they have already spent in excess of $250,000 on such ads on behalf of its 300 plus clients for the 2005 employment season. This was out of over 6,000 job openings for 300 plus employers in 30 plus States. Even after this campaign, they only succeeded in locating and hiring less than 50 U.S. workers who expressed an interest in the H-2B jobs. They were all hired, but unfortunately, less than half of these workers started work and even less completed the entire season. In regard to the seafood industry, over the past 15 years, Americans have slowly withdrawn from their workforce. It is common for motivated workers to make $75-$100 dollars in a 7-hour day shucking oysters, picking crabs, or packing the product. Those in the seafood industry have told me that despite this earning potential, ``frequently U.S. workers will work for a day or two and then never return. It is difficult to function on the uncertainty of our local work force, but we never give up on them.'' In addition, the Department of Labor requires H-2B workers and U.S. workers to be paid the same wages for the same work. Additionally, all of the same taxes taken out of a domestic worker's salary are taken out of the H-2B worker's salary; however, the H-2B worker by regulation are ineligible to receive any benefits from the taxes withheld from their paycheck. The H-2B program encourages illegal immigration; or, there's nothing more permanent than a temporary worker, a long review of the management of this program reveals otherwise. The employers have successfully ensured that the workers return to their home country. If they do not, employers are not able to participate in the program next year, and neither are the workers. Most consulates in their home countries require the workers to present themselves personally to prove that they have returned home. Believe me, I am a strong supporter of efforts to help those Americans who want to work get the skills they need to be successful in the workforce. But these H-2B workers are not taking jobs from Americans, they are filling in the gaps left vacant by Americans that do not want them. Like I have said before, this program actually helps to sustain domestic jobs. The future success of the H-2B visa program rests on the ability of businesses to participate in it, but right now, many will be denied access to the program for the second year in a row. The amendment introduced today helps fix this problem by focusing on three main objectives to help make the H-2B program more effective and more fair. These seasonal businesses just cannot find enough American workers to meet their business needs. And ultimately, that is why this program is so important. Without Americans to fill these jobs, these businesses need to be able to participate in the H-2B program. The current system is not treating small and seasonal businesses fairly and must be reformed if we want these employers to stay in business. I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Maryland for raising this issue. I have joined her as a cosponsor on this amendment. In my some quarter of a century that I have been privileged to be in the Senate I have watched in my State the loss of the textile industry and the furniture industry. Peanuts have disappeared, tobacco has disappeared, and now the seafood industry is disappearing. The distinguished Senator from Maryland and I have paralleled our careers, and my recollection is there used to be about 150 oyster-picking and crab-picking small businesses in my State. If there is one thing about this legislation, it is for the small person operator, man and woman. I doubt if there is now more than 40 out of the 150 or more picking houses remaining in my State, and these folks have come to see me. They are very quiet when they come in. They do not have any high-paid lobbyist. They come up themselves. Maybe they take off their overalls, but by and large they come right in the office in a very courteous way and they do not beg for anything. They just want to have an opportunity to remain in existence. Most of these small operations have been handed down from family to family. Throughout Virginia, we take great pride in the Virginia crabcake. We are in competition with the Maryland crabcake. Now, I know Marylanders will come over and steal the Virginia crabmeat to put in their crabcakes. I say to my dear friends, the two Senators from Maryland, they know that, but pretty soon there may not be any crabmeat left for the crabcakes from either State to put on their menus. Likewise, the oysters have declined, but that, I cannot say, is entirely due to this labor situation. It is more because of the Chesapeake Bay and the problems we are having with the balance of nature. The oysters are disappearing for a variety of reasons, but I will not get into that. Then a number of the seafood houses that provide bait for fishing are dependent on these workers. I ask my colleagues to listen carefully to two letters that were written to me, and then I will yield the floor. The first one is from Cap'n Tom's Seafood. He states: My name is Tom Stevens, I am owner and operator of Cap'n Tom's Seafood located in Lancaster County in the Northern Neck of Virginia. By the way, that is one community I have tried to help because those counties have great pride, but they do not have as strong an economy as they once did. He continues: I'm located less than 30 minutes from businesses like The Tides Inn, Indian Creek Yacht Club and Windmill Point. These business are large consumers of seafood. I also have many customers in the Richmond area. When I opened my plant, for years I tried to operate using local help. However, it has become much harder to operate. Not only is the local force scarce and unreliable, but the younger generation is not interested, in learning the trade. On holidays, such as Thanksgiving and Christmas when oysters are in demand, shuckers are nowhere to be found. As you are aware, in this business, oysters must be shucked and crabs must be picked soon after they arrive. I have tried to get local help by advertising in the local newspapers and through the employment agency without success. I finally got help through the H2 B workers program. Speaking for myself and several others in the industry, we could not operate our businesses if it weren't for the H2 B program. I can not emphasize enough how important this program is for the seafood industry of Virginia. These workers are reliable, hard working, and with excellent work ethics. Their main purpose is to earn money to improve their lives and the lives of their families in their country of origin. I pay them as I do my other workers, not the minimum I was told I could, but the top of the pay scale for the seafood industry. I deduct their taxes including Social Security and pay unemployment, even though they do not claim it. I sincerely hope that you will continue to support the H2 B workers program and to strengthen the program by increasing the quota. The future of the seafood industry is dependent entirely on this program. It is important that our industry remains strong and healthy for the welfare of the State of Virginia. Sincerely, Tom Stevens. The other letter is from Bevans Oyster Company, Inc., in Kinsale, VA, a small community: I am Ronald Bevans, President and owner of Bevans Oyster Company. My company relies on the Federal H2-B temporary foreign visa program to provide the legal, reliable, seasonal labor which my company needs in order to stay in business. We have used this program since 1996 to obtain fish packers from March 1 to December 31. Our workers, for the most part, return to us each year. Some of them have been with us since we started the program in 1996. And on and on it goes. One sentence in here stands out: Our seafood business cannot survive without the H2-B workers. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join with me to help these small and seasonal businesses by agreeing to this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter and other letters printed in the Record and yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will offer an amendment to H.R. 1268 which would require the Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress by July 15, 2005, on the Government's processes and policies for disposal of property at military installations proposed to be closed or realigned as part of the 2005 round of base closure and realignment, and the assistance available to affected local communities for reuse and redevelopment decisions. This report will be of tremendous assistance to States and local communities affected by BRAC, and faced with difficult decisions about the redevelopment and economic revitalization of their areas. The report required by this amendment is similar to Community Guides to base reuse, which were published by the Department of Defense in all four previous BRAC rounds during the Commission's deliberations. These guides served a vital purpose for affected communities by explaining existing Federal law pertaining to property disposal and by endorsing a proactive and cooperative relationship between military departments and local communities, without appearing to be directive in nature. I ask support for this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I object to that statement.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Durbin, an important bipartisan bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. My good friend and colleague in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Frank Wolf, is introducing the same legislation today in the House. Without a doubt, our ability to remain ahead of the curve in scientific and technological advancements is a key component to ensuring America's national, homeland and economic security in the post 9/11 world of global terrorism. Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds. The situation America faces today is not unlike almost 50 years ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked America, as many of us had assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility; afterwards our Nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind. In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress passed legislation creating the National Defense Education Act, which was designed to stimulate advancement in science and mathematics. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the moon within the decade. These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure that our modern military has always had the best equipment and technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the foundation for the creation of some of the most significant technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the Internet. Why is any of this important to us today? Because, as the old saying goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it. The truth of the matter is that today America's education system is coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we now need and will continue to need far into the future. The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students in the United States were below average when compared to their international counterparts in industrialized countries. While a little bit better news was presented by the recently released 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it is still nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade students in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better. Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning achievement in math and science education. The National Science Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it was in the United States. In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high tech jobs are being outsourced with them. Moreover, in the post 9/11 era, it is more important than ever from a security perspective to have American citizens performing certain tasks. We cannot run the risk of having to out-source the security of this country simply because we don't have enough highly trained U.S. citizens to meet our America's needs. The legislation we are introducing today is a targeted measure that will help America meet its needs by providing strong incentives to students and graduates to pursue studies and careers in these important scientific and technical fields. Our bill simply allows the Federal Government to pay the interest on undergraduate student loans for certain graduates of math, science, or engineering programs who agree to work in the United States in these fields for 5 consecutive years. Priority will be given to those students with degrees in majors that are key to protecting our national, homeland and economic security as a nation. Almost 50 years ago our Nation learned a lesson about the cost of complacency in science and technology. While we responded with immediate vigor and ultimately prevailed, today, new dangers are upon us. Once again, America must rise to meet a new challenge. In my view, this initiative is an important step forward that will encourage Americans to enter important fields of study that are crucial to the national, homeland, and economic security of this country.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Durbin, an important bipartisan bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. My good friend and colleague in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Frank Wolf, is introducing the same legislation today in the House. Without a doubt, our ability to remain ahead of the curve in scientific and technological advancements is a key component to ensuring America's national, homeland and economic security in the post 9/11 world of global terrorism. Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds. The situation America faces today is not unlike almost 50 years ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked America, as many of us had assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility; afterwards our Nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind. In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress passed legislation creating the National Defense Education Act, which was designed to stimulate advancement in science and mathematics. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the moon within the decade. These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure that our modern military has always had the best equipment and technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the foundation for the creation of some of the most significant technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the Internet. Why is any of this important to us today? Because, as the old saying goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it. The truth of the matter is that today America's education system is coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we now need and will continue to need far into the future. The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students in the United States were below average when compared to their international counterparts in industrialized countries. While a little bit better news was presented by the recently released 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it is still nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade students in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better. Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning achievement in math and science education. The National Science Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it was in the United States. In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high tech jobs are being outsourced with them. Moreover, in the post 9/11 era, it is more important than ever from a security perspective to have American citizens performing certain tasks. We cannot run the risk of having to out-source the security of this country simply because we don't have enough highly trained U.S. citizens to meet our America's needs. The legislation we are introducing today is a targeted measure that will help America meet its needs by providing strong incentives to students and graduates to pursue studies and careers in these important scientific and technical fields. Our bill simply allows the Federal Government to pay the interest on undergraduate student loans for certain graduates of math, science, or engineering programs who agree to work in the United States in these fields for 5 consecutive years. Priority will be given to those students with degrees in majors that are key to protecting our national, homeland and economic security as a nation. Almost 50 years ago our Nation learned a lesson about the cost of complacency in science and technology. While we responded with immediate vigor and ultimately prevailed, today, new dangers are upon us. Once again, America must rise to meet a new challenge. In my view, this initiative is an important step forward that will encourage Americans to enter important fields of study that are crucial to the national, homeland, and economic security of this country.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment has the effect of placing a serious impediment, if not an absolute block, against the United States proceeding to fulfillment of a contract entered into by the Department of Defense--more specifically, the Navy Department having been the executive agent on this contract--for the procurement of the replacement helicopters commonly referred to as marine I. It is the fleet that serves the President primarily and others associated with the White House. This contract was in negotiation for over a year. It was an open and free competition. So far as I know there was no question raised against the contract being awarded to the winning company, a U.S. company, together with a consortium of overseas participants with, nevertheless, the U.S. company being the lead company. The amendment was drafted to the Arms Export Control Act and it is intended to prevent the Navy from going forward with this acquisition program. This is a matter that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. Normally, we consult committees before acting. I do not fault the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I think at the time this was done very hastily, it was not clear to the staff and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee that it was within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. Otherwise, I would have come over to the floor earlier. Now, the amendment having been adopted, I, together with my two distinguished colleagues from New York, Senators Clinton and Schumer, will address this matter tomorrow or during the course of the further consideration of the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act. But I can assure you, we will employ every parliamentary device available to us to see that this matter is rectified because I think it was not done in a manner that is consistent with what we normally do around here by way of procedures. Secondly, I think it is detrimental to the whole performance of the contracting and procurement responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense. So for the moment, for those interested in this contract, let it be known there is a group of us who are going to have this reexamined and, if necessary, take it to the full Senate for consideration before this bill is finally acted upon. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to ADM Carlisle A.H. Trost, U.S. Navy, Retired, as he steps down after 17 faithful, diligent, and honorable years as the chairman of the board of directors of the George and Carol Olmsted Foundation of Falls Church, VA. In years past it was a privilege to have worked closely with both George Olmsted and Admiral Trost. Admiral Trost, who ascended to the position of Chief of Naval Operations during his long and distinguished career as a naval officer, offered his services first as a director, then as chairman of the board, of the prestigious Olmsted Foundation. Demonstrating a vital understanding of this complex world, he led the foundation in its expanding role to educate young, talented, and dedicated military officers in learning foreign languages and in understanding foreign cultures through the awarding of scholarships to study overseas for 2 years. With our military deployed for wars in over 100 countries across the globe, the importance of having officers imbued with the cultural sensitivities and language capabilities provided by this special education is essential. Thanks to Admiral Trost's innate understanding of the importance of the training provided to Olmsted scholars and his visionary leadership, the number of scholars studying annually doubled and the foundation's endowment increased dramatically. Admiral Trost also established the Tri-Service Academy Cadet and Midshipman Overseas Travel and Cultural Immersion Program at our three service academies in 2001. He later extended this important training and educational program to the three Service Reserve Officer Training Commands, ROTC, and the six senior military colleges, title 10 schools. Admiral Trost graduated from the Naval Academy in 1953, where he was first in his class of 925 midshipmen. He went on to become an Olmsted Scholar in 1960, studying in the German language at the University of Freiburg from 1960 to 1962. From there he had a most successful tour as a submarine officer, eventually commanding the blue crew of the nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, USS Sam Rayburn, SSBN 635. As a young captain, he was selected by his superiors to serve as a naval aide to the Under Secretary and, later, Secretary of the Navy. It was my good fortune to have served in these positions and to have learned from this great teacher, peer, and life-long friend. Whether as a submarine group commander, a numbered fleet commander, Commander of the Atlantic Fleet, or as Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Trost always served his country with honor and dignity. Admiral Trost has provided outstanding leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on many critical issues and at many key levels of decision making for both the Navy and the Nation. Indeed, his actions and wise counsel over the years have been of enduring importance to the U.S. Congress. Though he is a modest man, he truly is an extraordinary individual and leader who has contributed so much to this country and the cause of freedom. He has been dedicated fully to mission accomplishment, education, leadership, and professionalism in the highest traditions of the American spirit.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This is a principle of Federalism which, I believe, is not being followed by Congress in enacting this legislation. That the misfortunes of life vested upon Theresa Marie Schiavo are a human tragedy, no one can deny. I said my prayers, as did many Americans, as we attended religious services this Palm Sunday. I believe it unwise for the Congress to take from the State of Florida its constitutional responsibility to resolve the issues in this case. The Florida State court system has adjudicated the issues to date. This bill, in effect, challenges the integrity and capabilities of the State courts in Florida. That the Federal system of courts can move properly and fairly ajudicate the equities among the diverse parties in this particular case is a conclusion with which I cannot agree. Greater wisdom is not always reposed in the branches of the Federal Government. Apart from constitutional issues, I am concerned for the institution of the Senate, a body in which I have been privileged to serve for over a quarter of a century. I view service in the Senate as that of a trustee--preserve this venerable body, its traditions and time-tested precedents, for future generations. It is one of a kind in their troubled world. The drafters of this bill endeavored to write in provisions to prevent this unique law--a private relief bill is the term used in our procedures--from becoming a ``precedent for future legislation'' (section 7). I do not believe the legislation can, or will, block further petitions from our citizens. Who can say there are not other tragic situations across our land today; who can predict what the future may inflict by way of personal hardship upon our citizens? I fear the door has opened and Congress, which by constitutional mandate is entrusted to pass laws for the Nation, will again and again be petitioned to deal with personal situations which are the responsibility of the several States. I respect the views of those who drafted and moved this bill swiftly, with limited debate, through the Senate. I value the sanctity of life no less fervently than they, for I had the great fortune of being the son of a doctor who devoted his entire life to healing and caring for the sick and injured. My father's principles have been my compass for my life. It is not easy to be in opposition to this legislation, but I have a duty to state my views in keeping with my oath to support the Constitution as I interpret it. in defense of senate tradition

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Leahy amendment No. 83 to the bankruptcy reform bill. This amendment offers a common- sense solution to a thorny issue in current bankruptcy law. While I am a strong supporter of the underlying bankruptcy reform bill, and look forward to voting for its final passage, I am concerned about section 414, which amends the disinterested person definition in the conflict of interest standards of the Bankruptcy Code. Under current law, a firm that serves as an underwriter for a company's securities may be barred absolutely from advising that company in a bankruptcy reorganization. The existing law is probably an over-broad response to the fear of potential abuse. For example, there is little potential for abuse in bankruptcy if an investment bank underwrote securities for a company 50 years ago, and had not done so since. Section 414 in this bankruptcy reform bill essentially does away with the current ban, and gives bankruptcy judges the discretion to determine whether the investment bank has a material adverse interest. If the judge decides that no such adverse interest exists, then the bank would be able to advise the debtor company, even if some of the bank's advice helped contribute to the bankruptcy in the first place. In my view, while the current law is over-broad, section 414 swings the pendulum too far the other way. I agree with the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, William Donaldson, who recently wrote to Members of the Senate on behalf of the SEC. Chairman Donaldson noted that the SEC believes that ``it would be a mistake to eliminate the exclusion in a similar one-size-fits-all manner at a time when investor confidence is fragile.'' Given the number of high-profile corporate bankruptcies over the past few years, it is paramount that we completely avoid the slightest appearance of impropriety in these bankruptcies. In my view, the Leahy amendment achieves that goal, and strikes a solid middle ground in this important debate. On the one hand, the amendment does not attempt to reinstate the overly broad current law. On the other hand, the amendment recognizes that it is important for Congress to set out some uniform policy in this area rather than leaving it up to hundreds of individual bankruptcy judges. Instead, the Leahy amendment imposes a reasonable 5-year waiting period under which an investment bank that underwrote securities for a company would be precluded from advising that same company in bankruptcy. In my view, this amendment would protect against any possibility of abuse, would safeguard against the appearance of impropriety, and would not unduly harm investment banks from rightfully participating in the bankruptcy process.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank Chairman Inhofe and as Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I am pleased to join him and our Committees' ranking members in supporting this order. I note that the issues for which the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is responsible fall within the jurisdiction of both the Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works has played an increasingly important role within the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army for homeland defense and homeland security. The Army protects and supports the American people in the event of natural and man-made disasters and emergencies. Army programs provide public works and engineering assistance to protect human life, reduce suffering, and mitigate damage, and Army response activities supplement State and local efforts. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works also has responsibilities, in concert with the Chief of Staff of the Army, in directing the foreign activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and formulating and overseeing the budget of the Arlington National Cemetery, matters of great concern to the Armed Services Committee. I note, as well, that there are matters under the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works' purview which are of concern to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Army programs for conservation and development of national water resources, including flood control, navigation, and shore protection, come to mind. Consequently, I fully support this initiative noting that the order is identical to orders by the Senate in the 107th and 108th Congress.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky has yielded to me his time. I will take about 7 or 8 minutes. It is so important for Members of this body to reflect on the President's most recent trip to Europe. Without being presumptuous, in my judgment, I think it was one of his best, maybe his finest, and in the years to come, I hope he can parallel the achievements of this particular trip. My views are important, perhaps, but more important are the views of the representatives from nations in Europe to the United States. I had several of the ambassadors visit in my office this week to discuss the President's trip. I would like to read some quotes from television programs on which these three ambassadors appeared recently. Jean-David Levitte is France's Ambassador, and I have had a particularly warm and productive relationship with this ambassador since he was posted. He has had an extraordinary career. He has been here in Washington a number of times in previous positions. It is well known he is very close to President Chirac. When asked a question about the relationship between our country in the context of the President's trip, he said as follows: Yes, I do think so. Wolf, I participated--I was privileged to participate in the dinner in Brussels between the two Presidents, and it worked very well. That is his appraisal. Then Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany's Ambassador, when asked the question, Has the relationship, based on what you know, Mr. Ambassador, improved? he replied: Oh, I certainly think so, Wolf. In fact, I don't really think we really needed the meeting in minds, President Bush's visit to Germany this past week, to improve this relationship between the two governments. I think we've been doing quite well over the last year already. He continued when pressed again: I think there has also been substantive movement and change, not only because President Bush, by visiting the European Commission, put to rest the suspicions in this country and in Europe that America might no longer be supportive of the European Union, of the idea of European integration, but also because in the meeting with the German side, in which I had the chance of participating, President Bush, I believe, enhanced the degree of U.S. support. He went a step further in terms of expressing his support for European efforts on Iran. Then Sir David Manning of Great Britain. I have had a warm and productive relationship through the years with this fine individual, another individual who has been posted to this country on a number of occasions. When asked a similar question about the President's trip, he replied: Well, I think we're all very encouraged by the President's visit and, indeed, by Secretary Rice's visit, because this has been an issue that's been discussed by all our heads of government, and much more widely than the three of us here. The point I make is, as I read through the press reports from these three ambassadors in the United States, they were all very strong on the issue of the success of the President's visit, together with our distinguished Secretary of State. Then to another subject that President Bush quite properly raised, it is one of concern to this Senator and I think a number of us here in the Senate. I would like to quote from the President on his trip. He said as follows: Well, I talked about this issue with President Chirac last night, and Prime Minister Blair. The issue, if I might step back, is: Mr. President, European countries are talking about lifting their 15-year arms embargo on China. What would be the consequences of that? And could it be done in a way that would satisfy your concerns? The President replied: Well, I talked about this issue with President Chirac last night, and Prime Minister Blair, and I intend to talk about it in a couple of hours at the European Union meeting. We didn't discuss the issue at NATO, by the way. And here's what I explained. I said there is deep concern in our country that a transfer of weapons would be a transfer of technology to China, which would change the balance of relations between China and Taiwan, and that's of concern. And they, to a person, said, well, they think they can develop a protocol that isn't--that shouldn't concern the United States. And I said I'm looking forward to seeing it. . . . Referring to the protocol. I discussed this with several ambassadors when they came into my office and, indeed, a team is to be forthcoming from the European nations to visit the United States. I think we should hold final judgment until we have had the opportunity, in a courteous way, to reflect on those precautions that the European countries will take in the context of lifting this ban. But I point out that in my study of the relationship between China and not only the United States and Taiwan but the entire region, they are on a very fast pace to modernize a wide array of weapons--weapons that could, for the first time, begin to pose in the outyears a threat to our fleet units. I select the fleet units because our concept of the projection of our force forward is dependent on the protection of naval components, particularly our carriers. I see on the horizon grave concerns about lifting this embargo in terms of China's capability militarily in the outyears. A third subject I would like to cover in the context of the President's visit is he was addressing the challenge to, indeed, all free nations as we participate to try and give support to Israel and the Palestine Government to come to a final consensus to resolve their problems and to bring about a cessation of the turmoil in that region. I am so deeply grateful the President made the following statement: President Bush on his recent trip to Europe stated, ``America and Europe have made a moral commitment. We will not stand by as another generation in the Holy Land grows up in an atmosphere of violence and hopelessness.'' Yesterday, the Armed Services Committee had a hearing. General Jones, the NATO Commander, was on the stand. I questioned him regarding a concept which General Jones and I have discussed on a number of occasions over the past several years, and that is the possibility of NATO playing a role of peacekeeping on behalf of the Palestinian and Israeli interests. That would have to be at the invitation of both of those Governments. Why NATO? Our country is very proud of a very long relationship with the State of Israel, an island of democracy in that part of the world. We have very strong ties there, as we should. Correspondingly, Europe has had very strong ties with the Palestinian people through the years. It goes way back. Significant portions of their population have ties to that region. So a NATO peacekeeping force comprised of both the military units from the European nations and some, I would say, proportionate amount of American forces would be perceived as a balanced force and could come, in my judgment, and provide a sense of security to support such frameworks of peace and accords as these two nations could hopefully achieve with our help and the help of other nations. Again, it would only be at the invitation of the two Governments, but I think it is a concept that I have addressed on this floor many times. Others have likewise; indeed, some prominent journalists whom I respect. I do hope that it be given consideration. General Jones in his testimony yesterday said it has been brought up in the North Atlantic Council of recent. Other nations are interested in this concept, and I hope our Nation, the United States, can get behind and explore the options. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide some relief for our nation's retired Federal employees from the severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to Federal and military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. The increasing cost of health care is a critical issue, especially to retirees living on a fixed income. In 2005 premiums are expected to rise an average of 7.9 percent for the 8 million Federal employees, retirees and their families that are covered under the FEHBP. This legislation will help to ensure that more Federal and military retirees are able to continue their healthcare coverage with the FEHBP and supplemental TRICARE health insurance plans as premiums continue to rise. In the fall of 2000 premium conversion became available to current Federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It is a benefit already available to many private sector employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the increase by reducing an individual's Federal tax liability. Extending this benefit to Federal retirees requires a change in the tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code. Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our Nation's military retirees as well to assist with increasing health care costs. A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees are strongly behind this initiative, including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, the Military Coalition, the Fleet Reserve Association, and the Association of the U.S. Army. My support for this legislation spans three Congresses. In the 108th Congress, my premium conversion bill received considerable bipartisan support with 57 cosponsors. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will be passed by Congress this session. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation and show their support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military retirees. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide some relief for our nation's retired Federal employees from the severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to Federal and military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. The increasing cost of health care is a critical issue, especially to retirees living on a fixed income. In 2005 premiums are expected to rise an average of 7.9 percent for the 8 million Federal employees, retirees and their families that are covered under the FEHBP. This legislation will help to ensure that more Federal and military retirees are able to continue their healthcare coverage with the FEHBP and supplemental TRICARE health insurance plans as premiums continue to rise. In the fall of 2000 premium conversion became available to current Federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It is a benefit already available to many private sector employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the increase by reducing an individual's Federal tax liability. Extending this benefit to Federal retirees requires a change in the tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code. Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our Nation's military retirees as well to assist with increasing health care costs. A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees are strongly behind this initiative, including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, the Military Coalition, the Fleet Reserve Association, and the Association of the U.S. Army. My support for this legislation spans three Congresses. In the 108th Congress, my premium conversion bill received considerable bipartisan support with 57 cosponsors. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will be passed by Congress this session. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation and show their support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military retirees. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am privileged to be the new boy on Senator Collins's committee. My mission is to try to achieve the smoothest working relationship between the Department of Defense, with which I have been privileged to work these 27 years in the Senate, and the distinguished new department and the committee for homeland defense over which my colleague presides as able chairman together with Senator Lieberman. Just a word or two I want to speak on Judge Chertoff. I, frankly, had not met him prior to the President's very wise selection of this able individual. I rise today to urge my colleagues to give the strongest endorsement possible to this nominee. I started my career as a young lawyer, a prosecutor, but my first job out of law school was law clerk to a Federal circuit court judge, the same position that Judge Chertoff holds today. I recall all through law school and the early part of, I guess about 8 or 10 years that I practiced law, lawyers always thought: Maybe someday I could be a judge, a Federal judge. The whole bar looks up to the judicial branch, as they should. It is the third branch of our magnificent Republic. When an individual is selected by a President and confirmed in the Senate, he or she then dons that black robe, and it is a lifetime appointment. I was privileged to observe the life of a Federal judge. My judge was E. Barrett Prettyman, and I had the privilege of standing on this very floor several years ago and recommending the Federal courthouse here in Washington be named for Judge Prettyman. I am always grateful to the Senate for its wisdom in accepting my recommendation. But I remember that judge so well. He had the strongest influence on my life. I aspired at one time to be a Federal judge, but I hastily tell my colleagues I am not sure I ever would have been qualified, for various reasons. But when you accept that appointment you take that oath of office for life. That is why I, and I think most if not every one of my colleagues, spend so much time working with our Presidents to find the best qualified people to assume these important jobs in the Federal judiciary. But it is a lifetime appointment. When I looked at Judge Chertoff in my office, we compared experiences. He was a law clerk on the Supreme Court, so he had gone through some of the similar experiences that I had as a lawyer, and also I was assistant U.S. attorney as was he. I said: You have to explain to me why you gave up a lifetime appointment to a position in which you can control your hours and largely control your vacations and have a magnificent family life and everything else to take on this enormous, uncertain challenge. He looked me in the eye, and he said: In America, you have to step up and be counted when the President and the citizens of this Nation need you. I give up this position with great reluctance, but I accept the next position and I will give it everything I have ever been taught in terms of how to do something for this country. That deeply touched me, Madam Chairman. I feel very confident that, with the advice and consent of this august body, we will send forth an individual eminently qualified to handle this position, and one who will bring about the necessary security that this country deserves and needs and expects. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the life of CAPT Frank Albert Manson, an outstanding Virginian who served his country with valor during World War II and the Korean War. While Captain Manson passed from this earth on January 20, he has left an exceptional legacy through his humanitarian vision, his insightful observation of naval conflict, and especially in the hearts of his loving wife, three children, and ten grandchildren. His daughter Jennifer Joy Wilson was a longtime member of my staff and remains a valued advisor. Born in Oklahoma in 1920, Frank Manson earned a bachelor of science in education from Northeastern Oklahoma State University in 1941. Following 2 years of teaching at the high-school level, he attended officer candidate school at Cornell University and gained his commission for the United States Navy. Like many other brave young men who answered the call of duty in World War II, then-Lieutenant Manson was sent to combat in the Pacific Theater. Appointed as the communications officer on the USS Laffey DD724, he was responsible for providing the media with the detailed accounts that followed the Laffey's triumphant efforts of April 16, 1945. On that fateful day, the ship and its resilient crew outlasted an attack of at least twenty-two Japanese aircraft, the worst offensive endured by any United States ship that remained afloat. While bombs strafed its deck and as many as eight planes crashed into the ship, the Laffey responded with courage befitting an American vessel. Eight planes were shot down, and another six were harmed despite the extensive damage inflicted by the enemy forces upon ``the ship that would not die.'' During his briefing with reporters covering the war, the young officer recounted the infamous words of the Laffey's commanding officer, LCDR Julius T. Becton, who had stated so admirably, ``I'll never abandon ship as long as a gun will fire.'' Captain Manson distinguished himself as an excellent writer during and after his military career. Following his noble service in World War II, Captain Manson was reassigned to the Pentagon. He coauthored three volumes of the Navy's Battle Report Series, the branch's official history of action in the war. Again, during the Korean War, he was called upon for his skills as a historian. Captain Manson traveled on a number of ships and spoke with many of his fellow seamen before co- authoring the exceptional work, ``The Sea War in Korea.'' A thoroughly researched and well written official history of the Navy's role in battle, his book was republished in seven languages and was selected for permanent inclusion in the White House Library. Before retiring from the Navy in 1968, Captain Manson served as Chief Public Affairs NATO Allied Command Europe and Chief of Public Information for the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, ADM Thomas Moorer. He was valued as a speechwriter for many naval leaders of the 1950s and '60s, including Admirals Robert Carney, Arleigh Burke, and John S. McCain, Jr. Over the course of his naval career, he assisted in high command policy formulation, strategy, and tactics through his service on the personal staff of fourteen four-star admirals and four chiefs of naval operations. While he was a courageous sailor and a noteworthy historian, perhaps the best known of Captain Manson's efforts was his idea for the ``Great White Fleet.'' Working from the Pentagon after the Korean War, he reflected upon the poverty and disease that he had encountered as a soldier on the battlefields of World War II. Understanding that the Navy maintained a surplus of vessels, Captain Manson began to investigate previous naval capacities for hospital and auxiliary ships. From his research he developed a concept to create, in his own words, ``an entire fleet of mercy ships grain ships, hospital ships, education ships, power ships--a fleet designed to make the benefits of the free enterprise system available to the entire human race.'' Recognizing his fellow citizens' desire for peace and the willingness of Americans to contribute to ``sensible'' foreign aid, Captain Manson gained resounding support for the fleet in the United States and abroad. Championed by Senators George Aiken and Hubert Humphrey, legislation for the humanitarian ships passed in this chamber, and his vision was realized with the inaugural voyage of Project Hope, a seafaring benefactor of medical care. Even during his years of retirement, Captain Manson provided his expertise to the American Legion, the Reserve Officers Association, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. A dedicated family man throughout his life, Captain Manson wrote a children's book to fulfill his grandson's intent curiosity about dinosaurs, and he was the primary caregiver for his wife, Lee, after she was disabled severely following a stroke. Captain Frank Albert Manson is to be commended for his love of family and his service to our country. I appreciate this opportunity to express my deepest sympathy on the occasion of his passing, and I join with his friends and loved ones in celebrating the remarkable life of this outstanding American.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 352, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act. This legislation, which I'm proud to cosponsor, would provide emergency relief to thousands of small and seasonal businesses across the country, many of which are significant employers in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Virginia, Senator George Allen. I particularly would like to thank Senator Barbara Mikulski and Senator Judd Gregg, the sponsors of this bipartisan bill, for their leadership in this area. Our legislation is simple. It makes common-sense reforms to our H-2B visa program that will allow our small and seasonal companies an opportunity to remain open for business. Without these modifications, these employers will continue to struggle in their efforts to find the necessary employees to keep their businesses running. The H-2B visa program is designed to allow nonagricultural businesses to supplement their workforce with non-immigrant workers when American workers cannot be found. The cap is set at 66,000 per fiscal year, which begins on October 1 of each year. Employers can only apply for a visa 120 days before the work is needed. For each of the last two years, this statutory cap was reached soon after the fiscal year began. In 2004, the cap was reached on March 20. As a result, many businesses, mostly summer employers, were unable to obtain the temporary workers they needed because the cap was filled prior to the day they could even apply for the visas. Consequently, these businesses sustained significant economic losses. This year the H-2B visa cap was reached on January 3, 2005. Now, even more businesses, especially in the seafood industry which has a long history in Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay, are susceptible to significant losses. The hardships in these and other businesses are very real. Many in the seafood industry in Virginia have come to my office, looked me straight in the eye, and told me that their businesses aren't going to make it another year if something isn't done. Only through passage of this legislation can this detrimental cycle be interrupted and these business can be saved. There are three main criticisms of this program which I am certain some will raise: these H-2B workers are taking jobs away from Americans; automation of these jobs makes H-2B workers unnecessary; and finally, these workers come into the U.S. under the guise of returning home after they've finished, but they never do. In my view, these criticisms of the H-2B program simply do not reflect the reality. Believe me, I am a strong supporter of efforts to help those Americans who want to work get the skills they need to be successful in the workforce. But these H-2B workers are not taking jobs from Americans, they are filling in the gaps left vacant by Americans that don't want them. The jobs we are talking about here are seasonal, labor intensive, and require a certain amount of skill, mainly in the areas of oyster and crab harvesting, seafood processing, landscaping, reforestation, and seasonal resorts and other hospitality services. Furthermore, most of these jobs cannot be automated. What kind of machine will you use to fully landscape a yard, to arrange and plant flowers? Some in the seafood industry already tried to automate parts of crab harvesting, but it was a complete failure. The machines failed to remove most of the bits of crab shells from the meat, and the consumers flat out rejected it. As for the criticism that these temporary workers won't leave, a long review of the management of this program reveals otherwise. The employers have successfully ensured that the workers return to their home country. If they don't, employers aren't able to participate in the program next year, and neither are the workers. Most consulates in their home countries require the workers to present themselves personally to prove that they have returned home. The future success of the H-2B visa program rests on the ability of businesses to participate in it, but right now, many will be denied access to the program for the second year in a row. The bill introduced today helps fix this problem by focusing on three main objectives to help make the H-2B program more effective and more fair. First, the bill will reward good workers and employers by exempting from the cap H-2B workers who have participated in the program successfully in one of the past three years. These are companies and employees that have faithfully abided by the law, and they have a successful track record of working together. Second, the bill will make sure that the government agencies processing the H-2B visas have the resources they need to detect and prevent fraud. Starting on October 1, 2005, employers participating in the program will pay an additional fee that will be placed in a Fraud Prevention and Detection account. The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Labor can use these funds to educate and train their employees to prevent and detect fraudulent visas. Finally, the bill implements a visa allocation system that is fair for all employers. Half of the 66,000 visas will be reserved for employers needing workers in the winter and the other half will be reserved for companies needing workers for the summer. This provision allows both winter employers and summer employers an equal chance to obtain the workers they desperately need. These seasonal businesses just can't find enough American workers to meet their business needs. And ultimately, that is why this program is so important. Without Americans to fill these jobs, these businesses need to be able to participate in the H-2B program. The current system isn't treating small and seasonal businesses fairly and must be reformed if we want these employers to stay in business. In closing, I strongly support this legislation, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join with me to help these small and seasonal businesses by passing this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 352, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act. This legislation, which I'm proud to cosponsor, would provide emergency relief to thousands of small and seasonal businesses across the country, many of which are significant employers in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Virginia, Senator George Allen. I particularly would like to thank Senator Barbara Mikulski and Senator Judd Gregg, the sponsors of this bipartisan bill, for their leadership in this area. Our legislation is simple. It makes common-sense reforms to our H-2B visa program that will allow our small and seasonal companies an opportunity to remain open for business. Without these modifications, these employers will continue to struggle in their efforts to find the necessary employees to keep their businesses running. The H-2B visa program is designed to allow nonagricultural businesses to supplement their workforce with non-immigrant workers when American workers cannot be found. The cap is set at 66,000 per fiscal year, which begins on October 1 of each year. Employers can only apply for a visa 120 days before the work is needed. For each of the last two years, this statutory cap was reached soon after the fiscal year began. In 2004, the cap was reached on March 20. As a result, many businesses, mostly summer employers, were unable to obtain the temporary workers they needed because the cap was filled prior to the day they could even apply for the visas. Consequently, these businesses sustained significant economic losses. This year the H-2B visa cap was reached on January 3, 2005. Now, even more businesses, especially in the seafood industry which has a long history in Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay, are susceptible to significant losses. The hardships in these and other businesses are very real. Many in the seafood industry in Virginia have come to my office, looked me straight in the eye, and told me that their businesses aren't going to make it another year if something isn't done. Only through passage of this legislation can this detrimental cycle be interrupted and these business can be saved. There are three main criticisms of this program which I am certain some will raise: these H-2B workers are taking jobs away from Americans; automation of these jobs makes H-2B workers unnecessary; and finally, these workers come into the U.S. under the guise of returning home after they've finished, but they never do. In my view, these criticisms of the H-2B program simply do not reflect the reality. Believe me, I am a strong supporter of efforts to help those Americans who want to work get the skills they need to be successful in the workforce. But these H-2B workers are not taking jobs from Americans, they are filling in the gaps left vacant by Americans that don't want them. The jobs we are talking about here are seasonal, labor intensive, and require a certain amount of skill, mainly in the areas of oyster and crab harvesting, seafood processing, landscaping, reforestation, and seasonal resorts and other hospitality services. Furthermore, most of these jobs cannot be automated. What kind of machine will you use to fully landscape a yard, to arrange and plant flowers? Some in the seafood industry already tried to automate parts of crab harvesting, but it was a complete failure. The machines failed to remove most of the bits of crab shells from the meat, and the consumers flat out rejected it. As for the criticism that these temporary workers won't leave, a long review of the management of this program reveals otherwise. The employers have successfully ensured that the workers return to their home country. If they don't, employers aren't able to participate in the program next year, and neither are the workers. Most consulates in their home countries require the workers to present themselves personally to prove that they have returned home. The future success of the H-2B visa program rests on the ability of businesses to participate in it, but right now, many will be denied access to the program for the second year in a row. The bill introduced today helps fix this problem by focusing on three main objectives to help make the H-2B program more effective and more fair. First, the bill will reward good workers and employers by exempting from the cap H-2B workers who have participated in the program successfully in one of the past three years. These are companies and employees that have faithfully abided by the law, and they have a successful track record of working together. Second, the bill will make sure that the government agencies processing the H-2B visas have the resources they need to detect and prevent fraud. Starting on October 1, 2005, employers participating in the program will pay an additional fee that will be placed in a Fraud Prevention and Detection account. The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Labor can use these funds to educate and train their employees to prevent and detect fraudulent visas. Finally, the bill implements a visa allocation system that is fair for all employers. Half of the 66,000 visas will be reserved for employers needing workers in the winter and the other half will be reserved for companies needing workers for the summer. This provision allows both winter employers and summer employers an equal chance to obtain the workers they desperately need. These seasonal businesses just can't find enough American workers to meet their business needs. And ultimately, that is why this program is so important. Without Americans to fill these jobs, these businesses need to be able to participate in the H-2B program. The current system isn't treating small and seasonal businesses fairly and must be reformed if we want these employers to stay in business. In closing, I strongly support this legislation, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join with me to help these small and seasonal businesses by passing this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, come 2007, Virginia, along with the rest of our great Nation, will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the historic founding of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in the New World. At this site, back in 1607, an adventurous band of Englishmen, led by Captain John Smith, pitched down their stakes on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, tired from a long journey across the blue ocean, but full of hope for the possibilities that lay ahead. And although they primarily came in search of economic gain, they brought with them many of the principles that were integral to the formation of our American Democracy. Free enterprise, the entrepreneurial spirit, and respect for the principles of representative government and the rights of man would guide these settlers through the trials and tribulations of those tough, early years. As we Virginians know, nobody was more influential in this founding endeavor, than their leader: Captain John Smith. Captain Smith was not just the man famously saved from death by Pocahontas, and he was more than the mere commander of a small group of pioneers. John Smith, as Virginians learn at a young age, was the first ambassador to the native peoples of the Chesapeake, exchanging cultural customs, trading goods necessary for the fledgling colonists survival. John Smith was also the first English explorer of the many creeks and rivers that populate the Maryland and Virginia of today. From 1607 to 1609, Captain Smith plied the briny Bay waters, recording history and surveying the land, even this patch of Earth where our Nation's Capitol stands today. In honor of Captain Smith's historic 3,000 mile journey through the choppy Chesapeake's main stem and tributaries, I rise today, joined by Senator Sarbanes and my colleagues from the Bay States, to propose a bill authorizing the study of the feasibility of designating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail. What would this trail accomplish? What would be its purpose? Outside of the obvious tourism it would bring to the region, and besides the fact that its creation would complement the existing Chesapeake Gateways Network, the Watertrail would educate Americans on the perils of our first English settlers, on their interaction with the numerous Native tribes, on the voyages they undertook to better understand the New World they had come to inhabit. First hand, students and seniors, parents and children, would be able to retrace the paddle strokes and footsteps of Captain John Smith, to see what he saw, to learn what he learned, to know what he meant when he wrote in his diary that ``oysters lay thick as stones'' and fish could be caught ``with frying pan(s).'' Ultimately, this trail would allow for a deeper appreciation for the Chesapeake, for a better understanding of the settlers hardships, and for the distinct cultures, English and Indian, that came to pass, in that historic era, at this historic place. Today I rise to celebrate Captain Smith's foresight, to celebrate the founding steps of America, and to celebrate the bounty of the Bay. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this feasibility study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, come 2007, Virginia, along with the rest of our great Nation, will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the historic founding of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in the New World. At this site, back in 1607, an adventurous band of Englishmen, led by Captain John Smith, pitched down their stakes on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, tired from a long journey across the blue ocean, but full of hope for the possibilities that lay ahead. And although they primarily came in search of economic gain, they brought with them many of the principles that were integral to the formation of our American Democracy. Free enterprise, the entrepreneurial spirit, and respect for the principles of representative government and the rights of man would guide these settlers through the trials and tribulations of those tough, early years. As we Virginians know, nobody was more influential in this founding endeavor, than their leader: Captain John Smith. Captain Smith was not just the man famously saved from death by Pocahontas, and he was more than the mere commander of a small group of pioneers. John Smith, as Virginians learn at a young age, was the first ambassador to the native peoples of the Chesapeake, exchanging cultural customs, trading goods necessary for the fledgling colonists survival. John Smith was also the first English explorer of the many creeks and rivers that populate the Maryland and Virginia of today. From 1607 to 1609, Captain Smith plied the briny Bay waters, recording history and surveying the land, even this patch of Earth where our Nation's Capitol stands today. In honor of Captain Smith's historic 3,000 mile journey through the choppy Chesapeake's main stem and tributaries, I rise today, joined by Senator Sarbanes and my colleagues from the Bay States, to propose a bill authorizing the study of the feasibility of designating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail. What would this trail accomplish? What would be its purpose? Outside of the obvious tourism it would bring to the region, and besides the fact that its creation would complement the existing Chesapeake Gateways Network, the Watertrail would educate Americans on the perils of our first English settlers, on their interaction with the numerous Native tribes, on the voyages they undertook to better understand the New World they had come to inhabit. First hand, students and seniors, parents and children, would be able to retrace the paddle strokes and footsteps of Captain John Smith, to see what he saw, to learn what he learned, to know what he meant when he wrote in his diary that ``oysters lay thick as stones'' and fish could be caught ``with frying pan(s).'' Ultimately, this trail would allow for a deeper appreciation for the Chesapeake, for a better understanding of the settlers hardships, and for the distinct cultures, English and Indian, that came to pass, in that historic era, at this historic place. Today I rise to celebrate Captain Smith's foresight, to celebrate the founding steps of America, and to celebrate the bounty of the Bay. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this feasibility study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to pay tribute to an able and valued member of the Senate family, Larry Janezich, who retires this month after nearly four decades of service to this institution. As a former chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, it was my pleasure to work closely with Larry and his staff as they managed coverage for Senate hearings, news conferences, and other media events during my time as head of that panel. As chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on the Presidential Inauguration in 1997, I had the opportunity to observe firsthand Larry's great skill in balancing the demands of the press who covered that historic event with the security concerns required by the Secret Service. During that time, and for more than a quarter century, Larry served the news correspondents of the Senate and House with distinction. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following thoughtful tribute to Larry from his colleague, Mike Viqueira, chairman of the Executive Committee of Correspondents of the Congressional Radio-TV Galleries.