Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator. Exhibit 1 Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Beretta Drive, Accokeek, MD, May 11, 2005. Hon. Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Vice President: A few weeks ago, the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals issued a decision supporting a D.C. statute that holds the manufacturers of semiautomatic pistols and rifles strictly liable for any crime committed in the District with such a firearm. Passed in 1991, the D.C. statute had not been used until the District of Columbia recently filed a lawsuit against the firearm industry in an attempt to hold firearm makers, importers and distributors liable for the cost of criminal gun misuse in the District. Although the Court of Appeals (sitting en banc in the case D.C. v. Beretta U.S.A. et al.) dismissed many parts of the case, it affirmed the D.C. strict liability statute and, moreover, ruled that victims of gun violence can sue firearm manufacturers simply to determine whether that company's firearm was used in the victim's shooting. It is unlawful to possess most firearms in the District (including semiautomatic pistols) and it is unlawful to assault someone using a firearm. Notwithstanding these two criminal acts, neither of which are within the control of or can be prevented by firearm makers, the D.C. strict liability statute (and the D.C. Court of Appeals decision supporting it) will make firearm manufacturers liable for all costs attributed to such shootings, even if the firearm involved was originally sold in a state far from the District to a lawful customer. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. makes the standard sidearm for the U.S. Armed Forces (the Beretta M9 9mm pistol). We have long- term contracts right now to supply this pistol to our fighting forces in Iraq and these pistols have been used extensively in combat during the current campaign, just as they have seen use since adopted by the Armed Forces in 1985. Beretta U.S.A. also supplies pistols to law enforcement departments throughout the U.S., including the Maryland State Police, Los Angeles City Police Department and to the Chicago Police Department. We also supply firearms used for self- protection and for sporting purposes to private citizens throughout our country. The decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals to uphold the D.C. strict liability statute has the likelihood of bankrupting, not only Beretta U.S.A., but every maker of semiautomatic pistols and rifles since 1991. There are hundreds of homicides committed with firearms each year in D.C. and additional hundreds of injuries involving criminal misuse of firearms. No firearm maker has the resources to defend against hundreds of lawsuits each year and, if that company's pistol or rifle is determined to have been used in a criminal shooting in the District, these companies do not have the resources to pay the resultant judgment against them--a judgment against which they would have no defense if the pistol or rifle was originally sold to a civilian customer. When the D.C. law was passed in 1991 it was styled to apply only to the makers of ``assault rifles'' and machineguns. Strangely, the definition of ``machineguns'' in the statute includes semiautomatic firearms capable of holding more than 12 rounds. Since any magazine-fed firearm is capable of receiving magazines (whether made by the firearm manufacturer or by someone else later) that hold more than 12 rounds, this means that such a product is considered a machinegun in the District, even though it is semi-automatic and even if it did not hold 12 rounds at the time of its misuse. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S. 397. H.R. 800) would stop this remarkable and egregious decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The Act, if passed, will block lawsuits against the makers, distributions and dealers of firearms for criminal misuse of their products over which they have no control. We urgently request your support for this legislation. Without it, companies like Beretta U.S.A., Colt, Smith & Wesson, Ruger and dozens of others could be wiped out by a flood of lawsuits emanating from the District. This is not a theoretical concern. The instrument to deprive U.S. citizens of the tools through which they enjoy their 2nd Amendment freedoms now rests in the hands of trial lawyers in the District Equally grave, control of the future supply of firearms needed by our fighting forces and by law enforcement officials and private citizens throughout the U.S. also rests in the hands of these attorneys. We will seek Supreme Court review of this decision, but the result of a Supreme Court review is also not guaranteed. Your help in supporting S. 397 and H.R. 800 might provide our only other chance at survival. Sincerest and respectful regards, Jeffrey K. Reh, General Counsel and Vice-General Manager.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think if Senator Reid is ready, I am ready to propound a unanimous consent request.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside and that Senator Reed then be recognized in order to call up amendment No. 1626 on behalf of Senator Kohl; provided further that on Wednesday there be 1 hour equally divided for debate in relation to the Kohl amendment and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Kohl amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. CRAIG. I should say, yes, I would amend that unanimous consent to say Thursday, not Wednesday.

Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator wishes to make brief remarks, then I would put the Senate in morning business.

Mr. CRAIG. Surely.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Reed for his cooperation and effort today as we work our way through this legislation. Several amendments that had have been brought to the floor with an attempt to offer them we are looking to see if we can work with our colleagues in acceptance of them. We have a broad base of support for the underlying legislation, and we want to be able to sustain that support as we go into final passage.

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 yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to submit a resolution recognizing the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the Veterans' Administration and acknowledging the achievements of the employees, past and present, of the Veterans' Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs. As Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am honored to offer public recognition of this auspicious anniversary and, more importantly, the fine work being done every day by over 230,000 VA employees. The Veterans' Administration was created by an Executive Order signed by President Herbert Hoover on July 21, 1930, 75 years ago today. Prior to 1930, of course, Federal programs existed to assist war veterans. For example, early in the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress created the first veterans' benefits package, which included life-long pensions for both disabled veterans and the survivors of soldiers killed in battle. Other veterans benefits--for example, ``mustering out'' pay--were also provided to veterans of the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Indian wars, and the Spanish-American War, and the first educational assistance benefits for veterans were enacted as part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1919 which provided for a monthly education assistance allowance to disabled World War I veterans. But it was not until 1930--75 years ago today--that a Federal agency recognizable by today's standards was created by President Hoover. The VA has a unique place in history having administered one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever enacted in the Nation's history, the ``Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944,'' better known as the ``GI Bill of Rights.'' This legislation, it is now generally recognized, revolutionized American society after World War II by providing educational opportunity to an entire generation of Americans--opportunity which otherwise would not have been available and which changed the Nation and ushered in the space age. During the period, VA's capability to provide medical care and rehabilitation services to disabled and needy veterans also grew significantly, leading ultimately to a health care system which is today recognized as a provider of ``the best care, anywhere.'' In the Nation's history, more than 48 million citizen-soldiers have worn the uniform, and more than 1 million have perished as a result of their service. More than 25 million men and women are alive today who proudly acknowledge the title ``veteran''. The Department of Veterans Affairs, as VA is designated today, exists solely for the reason articulated by President Abraham Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address: ``. . . to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' I applaud the efforts of the more than 230,000 VA employees who keep faith, every day, with President Lincoln's words. They--and we--could have no higher calling.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing previously scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Wednesday, July 20, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. has been rescheduled for 2 p.m. the same day. The hearing will be held in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics 202-224-2878, Dick Bouts 202-224-7545, or Amy Millet at 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing previously scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Wednesday, July 20, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. has been rescheduled for 2 p.m. the same day. The hearing will be held in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics 202-224-2878, Dick Bouts 202-224-7545, or Amy Millet at 202-224-8276.

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 unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The first fundamental responsibility for our Federal Government is to protect the American people through a strong national defense and effective homeland security. Border security and immigration reform are essential elements of providing for a secure homeland. With that, I am here this afternoon to commend the chairman of the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, Senator Gregg, and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, for their aggressive and decisive steps forward that are being demonstrated in this legislation. This bill continues to improve that which made our Nation and our people much safer than we were before and immediately after 9/11. I am proud to serve with the chairman and the ranking member and our colleagues on this subcommittee. We need to do more to improve our border security and immigration enforcement, however. It is important for Americans to understand that this Congress is making significant progress in this area. Earlier this year, as a result of a Byrd-Craig amendment to the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, we began the process of adding 500 new Border Patrol agents, 1,950 additional detention beds, and approximately 118 additional investigators, agents, and officers to the whole effort at Border Patrol. In fiscal year 2006, the bill that is before us continues to implement and build upon the progress that we have made in the Byrd-Craig amendment. This bill, as reported by the committee, provides for 1,000 more Border Patrol agents. It increases the total number of beds at immigration detention centers by 2,240 to a total of 22,727. It also adds 300 new immigration investigation positions and 200 new immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. This bill, as reported, in combination with the supplemental bill we passed earlier, makes record increases to commit record resources to border security and immigration enforcement. In total levels of key personnel alone, the Appropriations Committee has provided for 12,400-plus Border Patrol agents; 18,200-plus Customs and border protection officers; 6,000-plus criminal investigators for Customs and immigration work; 1,200-plus deportation officers; and 2,700-plus immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. In other words, in these positions alone, this bill provides for literally an army of more than 40,000 agents and officers fighting on the front lines for border security and immigration enforcement. The committee has made an earnest attempt to add resources and personnel as fast as the Department of Homeland Security can absorb them and use them effectively. The bill, as reported, makes available more than $7.1 billion for Customs and border protection, and more than $4.5 billion in immigration and Customs enforcement. While those dollars and personnel numbers reflect something of our commitment to improve border security and immigration enforcement, it is important to emphasize the work being done and the progress being made for the American people. More than 1 million individuals a year are being apprehended attempting to enter the country illegally, and formal removals have increased sixfold over the last decade. Worker identification checks have intensified. Development continues on US VISIT--the United States Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology Program. Personnel are being trained. Technology is being modernized. This bill calls on the administration, and provides resources to help, to close the gaps at our borders, to improve interagency coordination inside the Department of Homeland Security and with outside agencies, and to meet the challenges remaining from the historic, and massive, reorganization that created the Department. As I have said, we do need to do more. The Federal Government has no laurels to rest on when it comes to border security or immigration. The problem of illegal immigration has grown to crisis proportion, with an estimated 10 million undocumented persons now living here in this country. During much of the 1990s, and at different times in preceding decades, the Federal Government simply paid lipservice to enforcing the law while mostly looking the other way. This was with the quiet complicity of much of the public, in large part, because whole sectors of the economy have become increasingly dependent on the labor of these people. This is an intolerable situation. Our Nation's immigration system and laws are broken. Whether we are talking about more money, more law, or both, a policy that focuses exclusively on more enforcement is not enough, and it will not work. It is a part of the total picture. The United States has 7,458 miles of land borders and 88,600 miles of tidal shoreline. We can secure those frontiers well, but not perfectly. As we have stepped up border enforcement, we have locked persons in this country at least as effectively as we have locked them out of the country. Even as we have increased border enforcement, net illegal immigration is estimated at 400,000 to 500,000 a year. Fellow Senators, that is a figure worth repeating. Net illegal immigration in our country still, today, at this moment, in this year, will be between 400,000 to 500,000. To search door to door, as some would advocate, to find 10 million persons and flush them out of their homes, schools, churches, workplaces, and other areas is simply something the American people, in the end, would never tolerate. The question of civil liberties would grow and that effort would fall apart. We fought a revolution once in this great country of ours against search of our homes and, once again, I think the American people would react to that as not only unconstitutional, but dramatically intrusive. So what do we do? This bill is a major step in the right direction. First and foremost, we secure our borders. As I have said, that is step one. Step two, to me, is we change the law and we change the character of the law to deal with the problem that clearly is at hand; provide incentives for those inside our borders to come forward and identify themselves; laws that ensure there is a supply of legal guest workers to take jobs Americans don't want or won't take. For example, when American agriculture briefly had a widely used legal guest worker program in the 1950s, illegal immigration plummeted by more than 90 percent. That program was called the Bracero Program. It worked well, but it had lots of criticism for the way the foreign nationals were treated inside this country. As a result, it fell apart. We were then given what we have today--a very cumbersome law that no longer works. Last year, that law identified about 42,000 to 45,000 legal workers for American agriculture. Yet, we know there were well over a million working in this country for American agriculture that were probably illegal. That, too, is an intolerable situation. It is why several years ago I began to look at ways to solve this problem--at least for agriculture--because American agriculture is nervous, and they ought to be; they know that even though those workers who come to them have what appear to be legal documents, the reality is that they are, by 70 percent of their workforce, working illegal foreign nationals. If it is not corrected, it is an intolerable situation for American agriculture to be in. That story can be played out in a variety of other industries. But as I began to focus on this a good number of years ago, I recognized there was a significant problem that had to be dealt with. It is not a popular thing to do, but immigration and immigration reform is never popular. Those of us who are the children of immigrants sometimes hold the attitude, close the border and let no one in. Yet, today, in the American workforce we know that at a growing high record of employment we still have well over 10 million foreign nationals, undocumented, working in our economy in jobs that Americans oftentimes choose not to work in. That is why I created the bill AgJOBS, now supported by well over 60 Senators. We got a vote this year of 53 to 45 on a procedural motion to allow that Agricultural Job Opportunity and Benefit Security Act to come to the floor and ultimately work through the process and become law. Other colleagues of mine are working on types of reform. So what we are doing today with the Homeland Security Appropriations bill is making a quantum leap in the right direction. No immigration policy, no matter how forward-looking, how flexible, and how reasonable it might be to identify those who are in the country, to allow the ebb and flow necessary to meet both the economic needs and humanitarian needs that we are all for--you cannot do it without controlling your borders, without controlling the flow that comes across them. That is what this bill makes a major step in doing. I am pleased to be a member of the subcommittee and to join with Chairman Gregg and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, whom I have worked with on this issue before. I believe this bill deserves the support of the Senate. If you are for immigration reform, if you believe in controlling our borders, if you recognize this is an issue that has gone well out of control, then you would want to vote for this legislation. Is it a tremendous investment? You bet it is. But it is an investment long coming, because it is the investment we have denied and ignored as necessary to make for well over two decades. As a result of that, we have the consequences of the situation we deal with today. Now is the time to correct it. Now is the time to reshape immigration policy in our country, and to do so recognizing that it is a two-front issue--both to have the right law in place, and to secure our borders so that those who come across are identified and move across legally and appropriately, consistent with the laws of our land. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 20, 2005, at 2:30 P.M. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 703, to provide for the conveyance of certain Bureau of Land Management land in the State of Nevada to the Las Vegas Motor Speedway, and for other purposes; S. 997, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest, MT, to Jefferson County, MT; for use as a cemetery; S. 1131, to authorize the exchange of certain Federal land within the State of Idaho, and for other purposes; S. 1170, to establish the Fort Stanton-Snowy River National Cave Conservation Area; S. 1238, to amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to provide for the conduct of projects that protect forests, and other purposes; and H.R. 1101, to revoke a Public Land Order with respect to certain lands erroneously included in the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, California. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I spent the last few minutes listening to my colleague from North Dakota discuss a very important issue for our country. While he and I have come to the same conclusion as to how we are going to vote on this issue, we have come from different points of view to arrive at I believe a similar conclusion.

Mr. CRAIG. I would ask that be done, if that is necessary. Ten minutes is clearly adequate. I need no longer than that.

Mr. CRAIG. Since Congress gave the President fast-track trade negotiating authority in August of 2002, we have had to face the reality that comes with it. I supported giving the President that authority because clearly the executive branch is the branch that negotiates trade agreements. But while giving him that authority, I said that I would look at each trade agreement and study it thoroughly to determine whether I believed it was in the best interests of our country to approve it, and, as important, in the best interests of my State of Idaho. Three agreements have been reached and Congress has dealt with all three of them. I have voted for two of those three. The administration has been actively pursuing a vigorous bilateral and free-trade agenda around the world, and I believe it is in the best interests of our country, both economically and socially, to trade where we can, when we can, as long as it is fair and balanced and it recognizes all of the tradeoffs involved. Trade with foreign nations is a valuable component to promoting economic opportunities at home. This is not a one-sided economic playing field. If we were to produce only that which America consumed, then, working America, half of you go home. It is clearly in our best interests to trade and we know that. At the same time, we should not be trading off one segment of our economy against another. Trade agreements ought to be there to promote general economic growth in our country. Certainly it ought to be able to promote economic growth around the world. But in the end, when that trade agreement is struck and implemented, we ought to be able to say it serves all of America well. Congress is now debating, as we speak, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, otherwise known as CAFTA. I became involved with our trade negotiators as the President and our then-Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick, began negotiating with CAFTA nations. As an agricultural State, Idaho has a large stake in these agreements, and agriculture right now is currently learning how to restructure itself in our global markets to remain highly competitive, to supply not only food and fiber to America but to consumers around the world. As many know, a major agricultural crop in my State is sugar. Idaho is the second largest producer of sugar beets, behind Minnesota, in the United States. Idaho's sugar industry employs somewhere in the neighborhood of 7,000 to 8,000 people and generates nearly $800 million in economic activities in my State. The sugar industry of Idaho and in most other sugar-producing States has had to restructure itself in the last several years because of the unprofitability of it. Farmers have pooled their money, they have created cooperative processing plants to market their sugar, and so inherently have developed large personal investments in all levels of the production of sugar. It is well known that the world sugar market is one of the most distorted agricultural markets in the world and that most world sugar supplies are simply dumped on the markets at prices well below the cost of production. As the Senator from North Dakota was showing a few moments ago, some of that production is done at the lowest of costs and at a tremendous cost to human capital. U.S. producers already face an oversupply situation, with significant quantities in storage at the expense of the producer. Prices have slowly declined. Yet production costs in the United States have skyrocketed. Although the United States is the fourth largest importer of sugar in the world--no, we have not shut the world out, we are a very large importer of sugar--CAFTA seeks to significantly compound an already ugly situation and set a ``precedent of no return'' for further negotiations already underway with major sugar-exporting countries such as Thailand and Panama. In other words, this is not the last bilateral agreement this Senate will see before it that deals with the issue of sugar. CAFTA nations already enjoy duty-free quota access for sugar with the United States. I am not prepared to trade away an industry so vital to my State to the overall well-being of some other country's sugar industry. Other Idaho agricultural groups understand that those farmers who are sugar producers also are potato producers and bean producers and grain producers. We are not just talking about impacting one commodity. We are talking about impacting a lot of commodities. If Idaho were to lose the acreage that it now commits to sugar, it would have to grow something else. It would put pressure on other commodities. We have sought and have obtained a relatively well balanced economy in agriculture. In my opinion, CAFTA will distort that. Our U.S. negotiators are willing to open our markets to increased sugar imports while other competitors maintain unfair economic advantages in domestic subsidies and minimal market access commitments. Myself, along with my colleagues from sugar-producing States, took our concern with CAFTA to the administration. With the help of my good friend and chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Chambliss, we met late into the night with our trade ambassador, Rob Portman, and with the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Johanns. I must say in all fairness to them they not only listened but finally, after well over a year and a half of me saying ``don't go there'' and then when they did, saying ``come work with us,'' they finally fully began to engage. They brought forth a proposal that, in my opinion, was not all bad. At the same time, it modified the 2002 farm bill, in large part, and it committed U.S. money to a program to save, if you will, or maintain, if you will, that we had told our Senators on the floor was going to have no net cost to the American taxpayer. As a result, while I thought it was a significantly improved proposal, the sugar industry of this country looked at it and looked at what they felt was a very weakened position because of CAFTA and because of NAFTA and because of what was happening in Mexico now and because of a position they would be placed in the 2007 farm bill negotiations, and they simply had to say no. Trade agreements ought not to be trading one industry off against another. These trade agreements ought not to have to come to Idaho and any other State and say: We have weakened the capacity of your State, or the agricultural industry of your State in this instance, to be competitive and to produce and to sustain ourself and your livelihood. It is for all of these reasons that I will be voting against CAFTA. However, I applaud this administration for their diligent and willing work with us on this issue. In the final hours, they tried. The problem is, they didn't try a year ago, or 2 years ago, when this issue was being negotiated. More than once I sat down with Ambassador Zoellick and said: Don't touch sugar. It has a very static market today. It is in a highly competitive market. And it will be most difficult for that industry to sustain itself, let alone sustain itself in a diminishing market environment. They didn't listen. We have CAFTA. Anybody can waive two little packets of sugar around and say that is all it is about. But what about the Colombian agreement? What about the Thailand agreement? What about the Panamanian agreement? What about the South African agreement? All are sugar-producing nations. All are ready to sit down and negotiate and ask for a piece of the U.S. sugar market. That is why the producers in Idaho and around the Nation, when provided this last moment agreement, simply had to say no. They are placed, by this agreement, in a most difficult situation. As a result, in my support of them, I will oppose. Again, trade agreements ought not be about trading one segment of our economy off against another, trading winners and losers, and therefore creating an environment that pits one head to head with another. That is unfair. Our Government ought not be doing that. While there are many benefits to be gained by CAFTA, there are winners and losers. I believe the sugar producers of this Nation become losers. I have to vote no.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the short term, we have a problem that we will resolve when we return a week from now. By then I hope we have accurate figures, so that we can do as I think the Senate wants to do, and as the unanimous consent of the Senate expressed the other evening. At this late hour, all we could do is make a political expression. We could not resolve an issue. I think we are all intent on resolving a very important issue for the sake of our veterans. We hope to have those numbers, and I think we will. Those requests have gone to OMB, to see what their figures are, as I work with the Veterans' Administration, as appropriators do to make sure we have those accurate figures. I think all of us this time want to get it right. I know this Senator does. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, at this late hour it is interesting to me that, having had the House and the Senate speak in two different voices on the same issue in less than 24 hours, we would stand here and determine exactly the right thing to do. The $1.5 billion that we voted on yesterday is a figure I and my staff came up with. I happen to be the Republican chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. But, having said that, the ranking Democrat Member, Danny Akaka, agreed with that. Senator Patty Murray had been out front on it early on. I told her at the time I didn't know if our figures were right, and if we were wrong we would correct them. We can point a lot of fingers, but here are some realities. We have increased the veterans budget nearly 10 percent every year for the last 4. I said on the floor yesterday and I will say it again tonight, because it cannot be disputed, whether it was a Democratic President or whether it was a Republican President, the fact is they almost always underfunded veterans. It was the Congress in a bipartisan vote that funded it accurately and adequately. For those percentages of increase over the last several years, Democrats and Republicans alike stood together to do it and we produced a high-quality health care system. No veteran who is qualified today is being denied. No veteran tonight, with the now shortfall, is being denied. The reason they are not being denied is quite simple. We are borrowing interagency accounts to address the immediate shortfalls. And as we do that at the administration level, the Congress, the Senate, the House, are seeking to replenish those funds. There is a difference of opinion here, not between Democrats and Republicans, but between the Congress and the administration. We are working that out. I hope, and many of my colleagues on the other side agree, that when we return from the July 4 break, with a request of OMB to have those figures accurate, we can address this in an accurate way. I believe we are right. I believe the $1.5 billion is an accurate figure. But we agreed in a bipartisan way to say that those moneys shall be spent in 2005 and 2006, that there would be carryover money passing through in a seamless way from those two fiscal years. If we do what the minority leader, the Democratic leader asks that we do tonight, it is a political expression. It is not something that will become a functional, operative bill. The House is out. We are about to go out. There will be no conference. We will be back to visit this again a week from now. The reason we will be back a week from now with or without action on the floor of the Senate tonight is we do not have answers to this problem. We are asking for those answers because this time I have told the Secretary, I have told OMB, and as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee--Senator Hutchison is chairman of the Appropriations Committee and made it very clear, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are backing us on this--we will get the right figures and we will do it right. Now, with the new progressions, now with the growth rates understood, now with the incoming out of Iraq and Afghanistan and those numbers clearly understandable, we will serve them as we have been serving them and no veteran so qualified will be denied. That is what this Congress has done responsibly year after year and that is what this Congress will do. The Senate has acted. But in this hour there is nothing we can do, nor in this instance should do. In that time, no veteran will be denied service.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Central America Free Trade Agreement, its importance to our country, to our economic interests both here and at home, and around the world. Since Congress gave the President fast-track trade negotiating authority in August of 2002, we've had to face the realities that come with it. I supported giving the President fast-track authority then, with the caveat that I would approach all trade agreements sent to Congress with an open mind. Three agreements have reached Congress since 2002 and I have voted for two of those three. The administration has been actively pursuing a vigorous bilateral and free-trade agenda around the world, and I believe it is in our best interest to do so both economically and socially. Trade with foreign nations is a valuable component to promote economic opportunities here at home, but also to spread our democratic ideals that we value so highly in our country. Congress is now debating the Central American Free Trade Agreement, otherwise known as CAFTA. I became heavily involved with our trade negotiators as the President and our then-Trade Representative Bob Zoellick began negotiations with the CAFTA nations. As an agricultural State, Idaho has a large stake in these agreements and agriculture right now is currently learning how to restructure itself as our global markets become highly integrated. As many know, a major agricultural crop in my State is the production of sugar. Idaho is the second-largest producer of sugarbeets behind Minnesota. Idaho's sugar industry employs somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 to 8,000 people and generates nearly $800 million in economic activity for the State economy. The sugar industry in Idaho, and in most other sugar-producing States, has restructured itself after several years of unprofitability. Farmers pooled their money to create cooperative processing plants to market their sugar and so inherently have a large personal investment in all levels of production. It's well known that the world sugar market is one of the most distorted agricultural markets in the world, and most world sugar supplies are simply dumped on the market at prices well below the cost of production. U.S. producers already face an oversupply situation with significant quantities in storage at the expense of producers. Prices have slowly declined, yet production costs have sky-rocketed. Although the U.S. is the 4th largest importer of sugar in the world, CAFTA seeks to significantly compound an already ugly situation and set a precedent of ``no return'' for further negotiations already underway with major sugar-exporting countries like Thailand and Panama. CAFTA nations already enjoy duty-free quota access for sugar with the U.S., and I am not prepared to trade away an industry so vital to my State and to the overall farm economy in Idaho. Other Idaho agricultural groups understand that those farmers who are sugar producers are also potato, bean, and grain producers. We're not just talking about impacting one commodity, we are cutting a wide swath across several industries and sending an economic ripple through our rural communities that may not be recoverable. Our U.S. negotiators are willing to open our markets to increased sugar imports, while our competitors maintain unfair economic advantages in domestic subsidies and minimal market access commitments. Myself along with my colleagues from sugar-producing States took our concerns with CAFTA to the administration. With the help of my good friend and Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Chambliss, we spent some late nights and several conference calls to come up with a solution that would allow could address the concerns of the sugar industry. Our new U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman and U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns joined us in trying to iron out the differences and find some mutually agreeable options. I am very impressed with these two men's willingness to roll up their sleeves and work with me and others on what has been a very difficult issue. Although these discussions should have occurred much earlier, the administration came a very long way in a short amount of time to reach a resolution. A proposal was offered to maintain the sugar program as passed in the 2002 Farm Bill and to provide the industry with relief from surges of imported, cheap foreign sugar by studying and beginning to establish a sugar-to-ethanol program in the U.S. I think this proposal represents a strong effort of compromise in a complex and difficult environment. I would like to praise Secretary Johanns and Ambassador Portman for their willingness to make this quantum leap to accommodate our concerns. I think the proposal brings some good ideas to the table that we can build upon. I understand that Secretary Johanns has sent the proposal in writing to Congress to affirm his commitment to the agreement. I will be working with Chairman Chambliss on a Sense of the Senate to solidify this proposal and strengthen the promise made to the industry. The only fault of this proposal is that it does not provide the long- term solution that the industry desperately needs. I also have major concerns that the proposal compromises the law by changing our sugar program from that of operating at ``no-cost'' to the taxpayer to one that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. This is just not sustainable and a major departure from our promise to the industry. I know I share the same strong concerns with Chairman Chambliss that free trade agreements should remain faithful to current U.S. policy and not restrict options available to Congress in future farm bills. For these reasons, I will be voting against CAFTA. However, I do applaud the administration for their diligence and willingness to work with me on this issue. I hope that as we near the next Farm Bill in 2007, we will continue to work on a sustainable answer that maintains a very important industry in my State but also the agricultural economy in the U.S.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.