Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the leader, in opening the Senate this morning, said we would come to the floor later today to begin to debate motions to instruct the conferees on the budget resolution conference that is now underway and being negotiated between the House and the Senate. Of course, that is critical to our going home--the process to finalize the work of the Congress this year. So for the next few moments, I wish to speak about two issues that are in that conference that will be a part of the debate this afternoon on the instruction of conferees. The first one is what we call the Byrd amendment, also known as the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. To set the record straight, it is important to say that so people understand when I reference the Byrd amendment I am not talking about the Byrd rule as it relates to what can and cannot be inside the budget resolution but is, in fact, what Senator Byrd, I, and joined by others some time ago know as the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. As many Senators are aware, this amendment, the Byrd amendment, has had tremendous support in this body. In fact, in 2003, 70 Senators notified the President of our strong support for this provision. Further, just recently, 25 Republican Senators notified the majority leader of our strong opposition to any repeal of the Byrd amendment in the Deficit Reduction Act. I firmly believe those 25 Senators stand firm in their opposition to any repeal. A provision such as the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act that has so much support has no place whatsoever in the budget resolution or what we call the Deficit Reduction Act. However, some in this body are calling the Byrd amendment ``corporate welfare.'' If people in this country call a provision that protects U.S. companies and manufacturers from intentional and illegal foreign dumping and in subsidies, so be it. You can call it anything you want, but that is the reality of the existing law. When foreign companies continue to dump and get subsidies even after an order goes into effect, the U.S. industry gets absolutely no benefit from that measure. The only way we can level the playing field in those instances is to prevent those duties to be distributed to the very American companies that are injured by those flagrant and illegal practices. Some in this body would like to repeal the Byrd amendment because it has been estimated to result in $3.2 billion in cost savings. I have to tell you this estimate, in my opinion, is pure fabrication. This year, for example, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that this act's provisions would come to $800 million in fiscal year 2005. In reality, however, the figure was $226 million. CBO's estimate was off by a factor of three. That tells me that the 5-year estimate for 2006-2010 is grossly overestimated. Therefore, if we include repeal of the Byrd amendment to inflate budget-deficit reduction numbers, we are clearly not getting those cost savings, while at the same time injuring U.S. companies that are committed to preserving and growing manufacturing jobs in this country. Finally, some have argued we must repeal the act because it is in violation of the WTO. First, I believe this shows how far the WTO has overstepped their guidelines in placing obligations on our country we have never agreed to. Second, there is nothing in any WTO agreement that specifies how countries must spend their dumping duty proceeds. If we must do anything with respect to WTO, we ought to tell Ambassador Portman, as the Senate has done many times in the past, to negotiate a specific agreement permitting duty distribution in the Doha Round. This is not the time to repeal this provision while our negotiators are still at the negotiating table. I strongly urge my colleagues and the leadership to remove the repeal of the Byrd amendment from the Deficit Reduction Act. This is simply not the time nor the place for such an action. Further, I urge my colleagues to fall in line and support a motion to instruct conferees to remove this repeal. Failure to do so will send a message to our injured U.S. companies and manufacturers that Congress is wearing rose-colored glasses and fails to see or act upon the evils of illegal dumping and foreign subsidies.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in speaking to conferees this afternoon in relation to the deficit reduction or the budget reconciliation process, this is an issue that, frankly, most Senators probably have not heard all that much about. Everyone agrees that the reconciliation act, or Deficit Reduction Act, is an attempt by Congress to rein in spending and to build the appropriate budget in this climate. This legislation makes tough cuts in important programs in all areas of Government. While nearly all programs are taking their lumps--if you will, sucking it up a bit--Congress is, ironically, considering increasing spending in a bill whose sole purpose is to decrease spending. The Senate's version of the Budget Reconciliation Act, or Deficit Reduction Act, includes a provision renewing the Milk Income Loss Contract Program, also known as the MILC Program, which currently expired in September of this year. The CBO has scored this renewal in costs to the taxpayers of $1 billion over a 2-year period. In other words, half a billion a year. This deserves much more attention than it got in the Senate. The MILC Dairy Price Support Program was included in the 2000 farm bill to create a permanent direct payment program to the dairy producers. During the farm bill debate, USDA warned that the new program would run counter to the old dairy price support program in place since the 1940s. Analysis by the USDA in August of 2002 concluded that the MILC Program would cause overproduction, thereby lowering farm prices to producers, forcing the government to purchase the excess until prices stabilized. However, Congress ignored the USDA warning and authorized the program to last until September of 2005, enough time to see dairy producers through the tough times back in 2002. Now, after over $2 billion in taxpayer-funded programs, some in the Congress have easily forgotten about the agreement to sunset a program. When we sunset a program it is the intent of Congress to conclude it. Let me give some examples of how distorted it has become if the program is in support and in relation to production in our country. Idaho dairy production is now 4th in the Nation and one of the top economic drivers in the economy of my State. During the 2003-2005 period, Idaho received $39 million in MILC payments, enough to be ranked 12th in total payments received in the program, yet they are fourth in production in the Nation. In comparison, California received $149 million over the same time, is ranked fifth in total payments and, of course, California is the No. 1 milk producer in the Nation. There seems to be no relationship. I guess some hands are just too sticky to let money pass just because the law is 3 years old and ready to expire. My point is this: It is important to understand just what this program does and what the $1 billion for one program means in the overall picture. It has become market distorted. It provides little to no parity to all producers. It encourages inefficient overproduction in milk and it sends the exact opposite signal to our trade negotiators trying to sell the rest of the world on the idea that the United States is willing to cut domestic subsidies and amber box payments. Regarding the WTO negotiations, our United States Trade Representative and USDA Secretary and many others are currently attempting to negotiate in the latest Doha Round getting started in Hong Kong as we speak. It is clearly important we send a message. It is also important when we sunset a program after having found out it is market distorting, we ought to do just that, instead of pump it up again while we are asking all other programs that are federally expended to reduce their overall expenditures, to reduce the budget deficit and to bring this budget under control. I hope our conferees, as they negotiate the budget deficit reduction act, or the budget resolution, would decide not to fund the MILC Program, adhere to the sunset provision provided and allow a program to die as this program effectively did by the sunset in September of this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed for the Record articles in opposition to the MILC Program and also an article from the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the last several weeks, those of us who serve on the Subcommittee on Health and Human Services have been trying to find adequate resources amongst other resources to fund LIHEAP, the money necessary to help low-income families provide for their comfort this winter. I thought it would be an appropriate time to talk about that for a little bit because I think Americans need to understand they are not without power to do a few simple things over the course of the next several months of this winter to help themselves as it relates to the heating of their own homes. Americans spend more than $160 billion--that is right, $160 billion-- a year on heat, cooling, lights, and living in their homes. That is an awful lot of money. If most Americans are like I am, I would like to know how I can bring that number down a little bit, how I might be able to tighten my belt a little or my family's budget a little bit during this time of extremely high-priced energy. We hear about record natural gas prices and 30- and 40- and 50- percent increases in heating bills this winter for those who heat with natural gas. We know those who heat with home heating oil in the Northeast are going to pay substantially more. In the West and in the pipelines of the West on which my home is connected, where there is more gas, we are still going to be paying 25 or 30 percent more. What might we do about it? Let me suggest a couple of things. Do you know that if you lower your home heating thermostat by 2 degrees--by 2 degrees--for every degree you lower it, you save 1 percent on your heating bill. We were told by experts recently who were testifying before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, if every American did that this winter, by spring, we could potentially have a surplus in natural gas in the lower 48, and that in itself would drive prices down. Americans have power to help themselves if they simply would turn their thermostats down by 2 degrees. I am not going to do a ``Jimmy Carter'' on you by saying put on a sweater, but if you did turn your home heating thermostat down by 2 degrees and if you did put on a sweater and if you are a couple living by yourself in a large home and you turn off the radiators in some of your bedrooms that you are not using and close the doors, there could literally be a dramatic savings across this country. If you want to change your gas price experience at the pump, instead of driving 70 and 75 or 80 miles per hour on the freeway, why don't you go back to 60 or 65? And if you turned it down and slowed it down, oil consumption could drop in a day--a day--in this country by 1 million barrels of consumption. That is the power of the American consumer if the American consumer wants to do something about it instead of pointing fingers and blaming--and there is plenty of that going around, and we deserve to take some of it. The consumer is not without power. Let me suggest this in my time remaining. Senator Bingaman and I would like to help in that effort. So we are going to provide conservation packages, packets of information to our colleagues' offices that they can send out in their letters to their constituents advising and assisting in this kind of conservation effort. We hope you do it. If every Senator and all Senate staffs turn off their computers when they go home at night--shut them down, hit the off switch, turn out the lights in your office. If that were done across America today, heating bills and energy bills would drop precipitously. But we are in this mode of everything on, all the lights on, the thermostat turned up because we are still living in the memory of surplus and inexpensive energy. That memory is gone. The reality is that the world has changed significantly, and while we scramble to catch up and provide increased availability of supply in the market-- and that is what we are doing and that is what the national energy policy passed in August is attempting to do--while that is happening, you know what we can do: We can help ourselves. So once again I say to America, turn your thermostat down a few degrees, put on a sweater, shut portions of your house down and take literally tens, if not hundreds, of dollars off your heating bill in the course of a winter. If we do it collectively across America, by spring, natural gas prices could be down dramatically, and we would not see the kind of job loss that is occurring today in the chemical industry as large manufacturing plants are shut down simply because they cannot afford the price of natural gas, and they are moving elsewhere in the world to produce their product. We are building pipelines, we are drilling for more natural gas out West and in the overthrust belts than we ever have before, and there are trillions of cubic feet available out there if we can get to it. We are making every effort to, and this administration is doing just that. In the interim, in the reality of a cold winter, America, you can help yourself. America, you can drive a little slower, you can turn your thermostats down, and if we were all to do that collectively, it would have a dramatic impact on the marketplace and on consumption. Does it have to be mandated by law? Need there be a law to tell you that you can save a little money by those actions? I would hope not. I would hope that the wisdom of the pocketbook would suggest that we be prudent as to a procedure to follow. Senator Bingaman and I are going to supply packets to the offices of our colleagues. We hope our colleagues will pass those on. We hope our colleagues might take the time to do a public service announcement over the course of the next month, talking to their folks at home about the opportunity and what is available. I think it is appropriate, and I think it is the right thing to do. Senator Bingaman and I have coalesced with industry to see if they cannot collectively begin to produce a greater message of clarity about the opportunity in the marketplace to conserve and to save and, in so doing, to lower the overall cost of energy and its impact upon the American economy. Want to give yourself a Christmas gift? Put on a sweater and turn the thermostat down 2 degrees. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed for 10 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, for 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join Senator Rockefeller and myself tonight in speaking clearly to our negotiators as they head for the Doha Round in Hong Kong in December. Congress has made it clear time and time again that U.S. negotiators cannot bring back a trade agreement from the Doha that weakens U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty and safeguard laws that this Congress has put in place. These laws are widely recognized as critical tools to U.S. manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, and workers who sometimes are forced to fight for their rights to compete in fair environments. As we open up the world's trade, let us make sure that we have in place the tools necessary to keep it fair and balanced, and not negotiated away by our negotiations. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution with that instruction in mind.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2655 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in light of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the mounting $319 billion deficit, Americans have increasingly called on Congress to account for its spending. The reconciliation process is designed to answer these calls for fiscal responsibility by forcing lawmakers to look deeply and honestly into the federal budget and make necessary spending cuts and provide deserved tax relief. The tax reconciliation bill, currently being considered by the Senate, does many worthwhile things to this end--such as extending essential tax provisions set to expire this year like increased exemption levels for the AMT--and providing incentives to encourage charitable giving. The good effects of these provisions, however, are undercut by a fundamental inconsistency in the larger bill--namely, the bill that claims to provide tax relief actually raises taxes. Demanding more taxpayer dollars, in an effort to control federal congressional spending, is not the answer. Section 561 of the bill, the LIFO provision, not only imposes an additional $4.923 billion tax but does so selectively on the energy industry alone. The LIFO provision artificially raises taxable income solely for a subset of energy businesses, requiring them to report higher profits than those mandated under prevailing accounting rules for the sole purpose of imposing a discriminatory tax on these businesses. Section 561 calls this ``revaluation of LIFO inventories,'' but let us call this provision what it really is--a windfall profits tax. Proponents of a windfall profits tax on the energy industry justify the tax on two grounds: that (1) energy industry companies currently pay too little in taxes compared to profits, and (2) the tax is effective. As to the first, over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to Federal and State governments, including excise taxes, royalty payments and State and Federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy. And these figures do not include local property taxes, State sales and severance taxes, and on-shore royalty payments. In addition, far from being excessive, oil industry profits have historically been below the national average. The most recent statistics available show that this continues to be the case. In the second quarter of 2005, the oil industry earned 7.7 cents for every dollar of sales, where the average profit for all of U.S. industry in the second quarter was 7.9 cents for every dollar of sales. The rate of return on oil sales for the third quarter of 2005 is slightly higher at 8.1 cents for every dollar of sale, still very near the average across all industries. Even more illustrative, 13 U.S. industries earned higher profits in the second quarter than the oil and natural gas industry, including banking, 19.6 cents; software and services, 17 cents; consumer services, 10.9 cents; and real estate, 8.9 cents. The facts speak for themselves. Proponents of the windfall profit tax also say that the tax is effective. In 1990, however, the Congressional Research Service, CRS, analyzed the effects of the windfall profits tax which was enacted in 1980 and repealed in 1988. CRS found that the tax reduced domestic oil production from between 3 and 6 percent and increased American dependence on foreign oil sources by 8 to 16 percent. Energy markets are cyclical and the industry must manage its business in the face of significant price fluctuations. The industry has to ride out periods of low prices in anticipation of recovering during the periods of high prices. When oil prices are low, as they were throughout the 1990s, energy industry profits are insufficient to induce investment. Oil supplies are tight today for this reason. When prices rise, however, the industry is induced to invest in new infrastructure and production in hopes of capturing the benefits of higher prices. Eventually, this leads to lower prices again. Reinvestment is critical. The Congressional Budget Office estimates capital losses from Hurricane Katrina and Rita in the energy-producing industries will range from $18 billion to $31 billion. Imposing a tax on profits, however, reduces essential investment in energy production. If taxing profits prevents the energy industry from benefiting during period of high prices, there will be little incentive to invest in domestic productions, thereby increasing the Nation's dependence on foreign oil. The goal of Federal energy policy should not be to hurt--or help--the major oil companies. The goal should be to help American consumers. Taxing capital for investment does not grow jobs, does not grow the economy--only fails American consumers. The tax reconciliation bill is problematic not only for its inclusion of the windfall profit tax but also for its omission of a critical provision--the extension of the 15 percent reduced tax rate for dividends and capital gains. While critics argue that the reduced tax rates of dividends and capital gains are tax cuts for the ``rich'' and that the costs are too high, the lower rates have been remarkably successful. Some of its successes include: significantly boosting capital investment, contributing to the economic efficiency of the corporate sector, and dramatically increasing dividend distributions-- benefiting all Americans owning dividend-paying stocks, a significant number of whom are far from wealthy. Specifically, in the year following enactment of the dividend tax cut, 113 publicly traded corporations initiated dividend payments for the first time, compared to an average of 22 companies in prior years. Further, through July 29, 2005, the 500 U.S. companies making up the Standard & Poor's index alone have increased their dividend payments 626 times, resulting in a 21 percent increase in average quarterly dividends. If these successes are to continue--and reach their full potential--reduced tax rates for dividends and capital gains must be included in any comprehensive tax relief bill. And continued tax relief is what this country needs to both generate more economic growth and encourage individuals and corporations to save and invest. I am prepared to vote for a tax relief package--I cannot think of a time in the past when I have not--however, it must be effective, and it must actually provide relief. The tax reconciliation bill before the Senate falls short of this. I sincerely hope the conference report on this bill comes back better and stronger-- eliminating industry-specific tax increases antithetical to the bill's purpose while providing for sound relief provisions like the reduction in dividend and capital gains tax rates--so that we can satisfactorily answer the American taxpayers' call for a policy of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to use 5 minutes of Senator McCain's allotted time under the UC.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for just a few moments, I rise to recognize the work that has been done on H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006. For a good number of years, some of us who work on the physical sciences in the Senate--by that I mean on committees that recognize the kind of research dollars that are applied to new technologies beyond health care, but more in the physical sciences--have been increasingly concerned that we have dedicated almost exclusively all research money to health care, medical science, biological sciences, and not to the physical sciences. We had once invested heavily in the space program, and for decades it advanced our country beyond all other countries in technology, in all of the high-tech that has led our economy today and is now leading the world economy. Much of that was a spinoff from the early days of the investment in the space program. When few saw the opportunities or the benefits, some in Congress did, and it was well funded. While I am not standing on the floor in any way to criticize our investment in the biological sciences or health care--and clearly that has advanced technology today well beyond where we thought we could go, and in a much more rapid way to look at cancer and diabetes and other of our chronic illnesses in this country that are causing tremendous problems and death loss-- the one thing that has been obvious in tight budget years is that we have not been willing to commit the kind of investment dollars to the physical sciences this bill begins to speak to clearly today. For example, we are spending more money than ever before on nuclear energy, pushing the technology curve once again to become leaders in the world on a technology that we once led on but we let move away. Now for a variety of reasons, most importantly because of a need for clean energy, we are recognizing once again we have to put the hard dollars back into the technology that takes us beyond the lightwater reactor to the high temperature gas reactor and even beyond that some day, out there 40 or 50 or 60 years to technologies such as fission. That is in part what this budget and this appropriations bill speaks to. Certainly I come to the floor to thank the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, Pete Domenici, for his vision, his farsightedness in recognizing and fighting for some of the new money that advances us at our national laboratories that are tremendous treasures to advance these types of technologies. Once weapons laboratories during the Cold War, they are transforming themselves into lead research facilities well beyond what they were a decade or two ago. Clearly, that is true, whether it is in my State of Idaho or in New Mexico or California or in the other States that have the privilege of housing these laboratories and the quality of work they do. While this conference did not come about easily, while there are many more dollars that could be spent productively to advance our country and our leadership in the world of science, this is a major step in the right direction under tight budget constraints. I am proud to be a conservative. I believe in balanced budgets. I believe in bringing down deficits. I believe that all parts of the appropriating process have to share in that responsibility. Clearly, we have shared in it in the Energy and Water Development appropriations legislation. At the same time we have worked cooperatively with the House and, in a common cause, advanced a variety of the technologies that are embodied within this appropriations bill that is critically important. I thank the chairman for the work he has done to advance a variety of the technologies I have spoken to, and yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the attention of my colleagues to this regional issue regarding the Fish Passage Center and would like to make a few comments to clarify the intent of the language. This language is not about treaty rights; this issue is about ensuring accurate data is used in recovering the species. Removal of funding to the FPC does not mean the current functions will disappear. It is my understanding that other institutions in the region now perform most of the data collection and dissemination that is performed by the FPC. Reduced redundancies mean increased efficiency and effectiveness in the regional fish and wildlife program. The end result is a more focused program and the region moves forward toward recovery of the species. While BPA has contracted the FPC for the last 20 years, many questions have arisen regarding the reliability of the technical data. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Independent Scientific Advisory Board, ISAB, issued a report in 2003 in which it raised serious questions about the FPC's analyses. The ISAB said FPC's ``basic model and methods of presentation are now inadequate to make confident predictions for management, and other interpretations of the accumulated data are needed.'' Clearly, I am not alone in questioning FPC's reliability. Data cloaked in advocacy create confusion. False science leads people to false choices. We do not have to choose dams or salmon. They can, and should, continue to coexist. I am confident the BPA and NPCC will work with the region, both States and tribes, to ensure a seamless transition of functions. I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak on this matter. mixed oxide fuel project

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, tomorrow and through the weekend, we will be celebrating Veterans Day. I thought it was appropriate that I come to the Chamber this morning for two purposes. First, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the Senate, I have had the distinct pleasure of working with the VA and working with veterans across this country over the last year to not only provide them the services they need to improve their lives but to recognize the changing scene of veterans health care and the new veterans that are being created out of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and the kind of care and service those brave young men and women will need as they return home, some of them certainly not as physically or mentally whole as we would like. Because of their tremendous service to our country in the war on terrorism, I can say very proudly that this Congress and our committee and the Veterans' Administration have clearly stepped up to do what is right and appropriate in the recognition of the time-honored care we have provided for our veterans down through the decades and down through the conflicts in which America found itself, in the preservation of our freedom and the advancement of all peoples around the world. Idaho played a unique role this year, and I am here today to talk about the Idaho National Guard 116th Brigade Combat Team that is now returning from service in Iraq. For the last 18 months, these brave men and women have made a tremendous sacrifice to be away from their families and friends to defend our Nation and work to build a stable and free Iraq. For that, I am extremely grateful to all of them. It is important to remember that the soldiers of the National Guard are civilians first and soldiers second. They are our doctors and our business men and women, plumbers, farmers, teachers. Yet they have all answered their country's call to action during this time of need. The skills these civilian soldiers bring to the table have proven to be invaluable as our soldiers work side by side with the Iraqi people to restore the critical infrastructure, establish a thriving economy, and promote a free and prosperous system of government. Earlier this year, I had the privilege, once again, to visit Iraq--it was my second time while we have been engaged there in the war on terrorism--fulfilling a promise I had made to the 116th as I and the delegation and the Governor saw them off now over a year ago. So I was extremely proud to be there and to see this phenomenally enthusiastic civilian soldier in his or her work area as they did what they do so very well in a very courageous and skillful manner. These civilian skills not only were essential to provide the security for the Iraqi people, but they also provided the essential ongoing construction efforts. I was humbled to have that opportunity to meet with these fine young men and women on the battlefield in Iraq and to express the gratitude of the people of the State of Idaho and our Nation for these efforts. I also have enormous respect for what they did, but what is phenomenal is the feedback we received from the Iraqi Government officials regarding the work of the 116th. As I say, these are unique soldiers. The Iraqi people saw that and understood that these were really civilians who had tremendous talents in civilian life, and they incorporated that not only in the protection and the soldiering that went on over there but in the rebuilding of the infrastructure about which I talked. These soldiers faced a very difficult and dangerous task of maintaining the peace and stability in some very hostile environments. Yet they continued their mission, and they handled it with tremendous honor. The members of the 116th have spent 12 months in Kirkuk and other areas within that region. Their mission was to provide for the security of the people of Iraq against insurgents and terrorist attacks, establishment of self-reliant government institutions, and the reconstruction of the basic and critical infrastructure. Their two overriding missions were overseeing the successful national elections in January and the national referendum vote on October 15. Both of these missions were tremendously successful. We know about that. This is exactly what our President had proposed and laid out before us. While Americans and Members of Congress are tremendously anxious about the war currently going on in Iraq, the reality is we are on schedule and on course to do exactly what we set out to do to help the citizens of Iraq in standing up for government, providing a representative form of government, and stabilizing that area of the world. The 116th from Idaho, these tremendous civilian soldiers, participated in that, and I must tell you that in representing the largest deployment from the State of Idaho that has ever happened to our National Guard, we stand as Idahoans today tremendously proud of the work they did. The good news is, they are coming home, and most of them will be home for Thanksgiving. We will be glad to see them back with their families and back in their communities and reassuming their civilian lives and doing that not only for the Idaho National Guard but for all guardsmen and reservists around the country. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, working with the Secretary of the VA, holding hearings in Idaho and other places around the country, we want to make sure that this transition back into civilian life is as seamless as possible. These are men and women who have been at war. To simply step out of a war zone and step into their community is not going to be an easy task. Yet that is exactly what a civilian citizen soldier does. Whether it is the Idaho 116th or whether it is the tens of thousands of other guards men, women, and reservists around the country, we owe them a phenomenal debt of gratitude for the work they have done. You see, we have a system within our military that it is not just the active soldier who serves so well, but it is that citizen soldier, our friends and neighbors in our communities across the country, such as the 116th of Idaho, who continue to serve and, in a time of war, serve with honor and dignity. As we celebrate Veterans Day tomorrow and this weekend, recognizing those who have stood in harm's way and in many instances have given their lives so our lives could be freer, let's remember those currently serving in Iraq, be it the active soldier or be it the Guard or Reserve, for they are all one and their missions are all the same. The 116th of Idaho Brigade Combat Team has made Idaho extremely proud. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the order appropriate that we would discuss and bring up this amendment? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside to consider amendment No. 2437.

Mr. CRAIG. I think less than 2 minutes could solve this issue and we could return to the Senator's amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. That is correct.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, that is, of course, the order. I thank the chairman for correcting us in that because we are operating on the broader bill, the underlying bill, under a UC. This amendment was brought forth with the hope that both sides could accept it. Our side has accepted it. I worked with the ranking member, Senator Levin, to resolve a couple of issues in it that I think can be accepted. In that case, I hope it will appear in the managers' amendment. We would include in the amendment--and we are discussing those who are eligible to be buried in military cemeteries. We have a prohibition now against those with a Federal capital offense lying at rest in our military cemeteries. We found this summer that an individual who had been convicted of murder in two instances in Maryland, serving his life sentence in a Maryland prison, died and was buried in Arlington. We want to correct that by saying that Federal or State law, where the final decision--he is found guilty even under appeal--it has to be a final decision in that instance, and that under extraordinary circumstances, even though he might be convicted, a Governor or a President would commute the sentence. That would be the exception. I would be willing to agree to those two items to be included in the amendment if that is acceptable to all parties, and we would so craft it that way.

Mr. CRAIG. It is the only one over which we have jurisdiction; that is correct.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, that is correct. Full disclosure here: There is always concern when you restrict access for purposes of burial, but because we have already established that in Federal law and this appeared to be a loophole, which it was, and an individual, as I so stated, who was convicted of murder in two instances in Maryland was buried this summer in Arlington Cemetery, they understand that clearly, they appreciate that correction. And I am very specific in my discussions with the Senator from Michigan that we are talking about capital offenses--not all felonies, capital offenses of this kind. I thank both of my colleagues for helping us work out this issue. I hope this could be included in the managers' amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. That is correct.