Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in the State of Idaho. My State has experienced unprecedented growth in recent years. That growth, coupled with years of drought, has created a serious need for additional water storage. Of course, the first step in developing additional storage is the feasibility process. This bill provides the consent needed for the Secretary to conduct further studies of the projects that are currently underway in the State of Idaho that will help to alleviate water shortages in three of our river basins. This bill authorizes $3,000,000 to be used for the continuation of these studies. I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly move this much-needed bill through the legislative process. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in the State of Idaho. My State has experienced unprecedented growth in recent years. That growth, coupled with years of drought, has created a serious need for additional water storage. Of course, the first step in developing additional storage is the feasibility process. This bill provides the consent needed for the Secretary to conduct further studies of the projects that are currently underway in the State of Idaho that will help to alleviate water shortages in three of our river basins. This bill authorizes $3,000,000 to be used for the continuation of these studies. I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly move this much-needed bill through the legislative process. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have been on the floor of the Senate for the last half hour, listening to my colleague in what is, in fact, a very important debate for this country. I say that, even though the wringing of hands would suggest that somehow the debate is being blocked and the will of the Senate has been thwarted. I suggest quite the opposite. It has become a finger-pointing in a procedural way. I believe the Republican leader came to the floor yesterday and said let's have a couple of votes, several votes; you can vote up or down on the Levin-Warner resolution; you can vote up or down on the Gregg resolution. It was then the leadership on the majority side, the Democratic side, blocked it. I think the American people are wise to the tactics at hand. They are not unaware, and they are frustrated by what is going on in Iraq today. Clearly, we are focused. Whether it is the Congress of the United States or a vast majority of the American people, we are becoming increasingly critical of a war that has frustrated many of us. The Senator from Maryland voted against it. He said so a few moments ago. I voted for it. At the same time, I grow increasingly critical, as do many of the citizens of my State, as to what will be the future, what will be our success and/or failure and at a cost of how many more American lives. I am critically concerned that this Government in Iraq now stand up. We have allowed them to form and to shape and to vote. They now have a Constitution. They now must lead. In leading, I hope it could be to stability to the region and that it will not offset and throw out of balance what the free world looks at and says is very important and that is, of course, the war on terror and the general stability of the Middle East. Indeed, I think much has been lost in the debate around this country as to the significance of the Middle East itself. I was extremely pleased last week when that kind of an elder statesman of our country, Henry Kissinger, came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in a very real and important way, and in a bipartisan way, said: Let's not forget our perspective. While for the short term and for the moment we are focused on Iraq, as we should be, let's not fail to recognize that since World War II, we have been in the Middle East to bring stability to the region for a safer, more stable Western World. I don't think there is any question about that. He was frank about it when he stressed diplomacy as an important tool. I have long advocated frank, open talks amongst our friends and neighbors around the world, not only about the region but about the role of Iraq within the region and what we must do. However, Dr. Kissinger also stressed that, under the present conditions in Iraq, withdrawal or the signs of withdrawal is simply not an option for America's forces. So anyone who comes to the floor today and says: Oh, but it is an option and we ought to start now, or we ought to send all the signals to our friends and neighbors around the world that we are beginning to pull back, is going against a trend that I think is critically important. They could set in motion the kind of activity in Iraq that could bring about a phenomenal genocide and the possibility of neighbors tumbling in on top of neighbors to create conflict in the Middle East that could bring down the whole of the region. If that were to happen, then I am quite confident that those who want to withdraw would find themselves in a very precarious situation. What do we do? Do we go back in with greater force to stabilize the region, when friendly, moderate Arab nations are now tumbling into war because we would no longer stand or we would no longer force, through a diplomatic process, those countries of the world to come together to work with us, to cooperate? While most agree that the current situation in Iraq must be dealt with politically--and we have heard that time and again--and economically, our military involvement is critical to provide the Iraqis the stability they need in this new democratic process. I don't mind pegging timelines a little bit and I don't mind thresholds and measurements and I think it is important we not only send that message but that we get it done, we get it done for the sake of our position in Iraq and certainly forcing the Iraqi Government to move--those are all phenomenally important issues. Let me stress two last facts. It is quite simple. The 116th from Idaho, the largest deployment of Idaho's troops in this war, was there and served and served honorably and proudly and the work they did was phenomenally important and we are proud of them. Let me also suggest that while many will say the general we now send to Iraq is the best military mind we have available at the moment, the author of the Army's war handbook on terror, we are saying to General Petraeus: You are the best there is, go forth and be successful, but, oh, by the way, we don't agree with the mission--what kind of a mixed message is that we now send to our military? The Senator from Georgia was right. The world is listening to this debate. Our men and women in uniform are listening to this debate. The enemies of the cause are listening and saying: Oh, the Senate of the United States is getting cold feet. Our opportunities are at hand. All we have to do is wait them out. All we have to do is accelerate the violence, and they will turn out the lights in the green zone and go home. Then the world, at least the Iraqi world, will erupt in a civil conflict, a civil war of phenomenal proportion. Those are the realities we deal with today. I hope this Senate stays on point. This is an issue that is critical to the future of our country, to the future of the free world, to the region of the Middle East, to any kind of stability we hope could be brought there. I hope we have the votes--and they ought to be up or down--and I don't mind being on the record at all. They need to be substantive, they need to have the force and effect of law, just not the ring of the politics of the Chamber, because that is what we are getting today--a heavy dose of politics and very little substance. We hide behind procedure? I don't think so. Let us bring these issues forward. The Craig resolution? Up or down. Levin-Warner? Up or down. What is wrong with those votes? That is what we were sent here to do. I would hope our leadership could bring us to that. So, to reiterate: Many people around the country, including myself, have taken a much more critical look at the way the war in Iraq has been handled. However, through all the hardships our soldiers face day-to-day on the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, it still remains evident to me that our success in Iraq and the success of the current Iraq government, is critical to the security of our Nation, the stability of the Middle East, and the fight against terrorism worldwide. Indeed, much has been lost in the debates around this country as to the significance of the greater Middle East stability when looking at the situation in Iraq. Our country has maintained a presence in that region of the world since World War II, and it should not be a surprise to anyone that many countries there depend and rely on our presence there, both economically and for their own national security. After reviewing the recent transcript of Dr. Henry Kissinger before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I agreed with many of Dr. Kissinger's views on the current situation in Iraq as it relates to the Middle East as a whole, and the severe consequences the international community will face should we fail in Iraq. Dr. Kissinger stressed diplomacy, something I have long advocated in this conflict and frankly for any conflict. I don't believe there is one Member of Congress who takes the decision lightly to send out troops into combat unless we all firmly believe it is a last option. I know I certainly didn't, and I know that an overwhelming majority of both Senators and Congressmen believed that as well when we authorized the use of force in Iraq back in 2002. However, Dr. Kissinger also stressed that under the present conditions in Iraq, withdrawal is not an option for American forces. Such a withdrawal would have long reaching consequences on the war on terror worldwide, could lead to widespread genocide in Iraq and possible neighboring countries, as well as severe economic consequences for all Middle Eastern countries. It is clear that such a circumstance would mandate international forces be sent back into Iraq, but the costs at that point would be grave. While most agree that the current situation in Iraq must be dealt with politically and economically, our military involvement is critical to providing the Iraqis the stability they need to let their new democracy take root. If we pull our troops out of Iraq now, or deny them much needed reinforcements as some would like to do, we risk losing Baghdad and possibly the entire country to full blown civil war. Under those circumstances, the government of Iraq would fall, and Iran and Syria would strengthen their grip on the Middle East, endangering the national security of America and our allies worldwide. It is my hope that diplomatic efforts will continue in a more aggressive fashion to bring the international community to the realization of a failed State in Iraq, and the real consequences that we all face should our efforts fall short of stabilizing Baghdad and the country as a whole. Because the consequences are so high, I do not believe that our soldiers' withdrawal from Iraq should be placed on any timetable, and we need to reassure our soldiers and commanders in Iraq that we will continue to support their efforts. After all, they are operating in Iraq, but the work they are doing will have a far reaching effect to stabilize the Middle East. Over the past few weeks, there have been many who have been outspoken about their disapproval of the President's new plan for Iraq. Not being an expert in military tactics, I do not believe it is my role as a U.S. Senator to play general for our soldiers as some are. Instead, I believe it is my duty in Congress to provide our soldiers with the resources and funding they require to do their job with the best equipment possible, while also pledging my unending moral support for the work they do each and every day to keep Americans safe both at home and abroad. Every 4 years the citizens of America go to the polls to elect a commander in chief, who is responsible to the American people to lead our military in times of peace and times of war. It is no mistake that the founding fathers gave the power to declare war to the Congress, but the power to lead the military to the President. Our soldiers should not have to follow 535 Congressional ``generals'' who hold up critical funding while they second-guess tactical decisions of the commander in chief and military leaders. Over the last few weeks a lot has been made of the troop reinforcement President Bush outlined to the American people. Prior to his speech, I and several other Members of Congress met with the President to discuss the current situation in Iraq. I made it very clear that Idahoans and I cannot continue to support the status quo; and he agreed. President Bush has spent the last many months working with his national security advisers, commanding officers in Iraq, Members of Congress and experts in the field of military issues in order to revise our national strategy with regards to Iraq and come up with a new strategy for victory. Make no mistake, the onus is now on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government to act, and I was extremely pleased to hear President Bush reiterate that fact. The efforts of our soldiers have given the Iraqi people a great opportunity to live in a free and stable country, but they must stand up and accept that responsibility. My home State of Idaho has shared some of the burden of this war in Iraq. The 116th Brigade Combat Team served courageously for twelve months in Kirkuk and surrounding areas, and they have since returned home to their families. I had the opportunity to visit them in Iraq and was extremely proud of the feedback on these soldiers I received from Iraqi government officials, civilians, and U.S. military leaders. I would also like to spotlight all Idahoans who are serving in the Armed Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I am eternally grateful for their service and I will continue to provide them with all the support I can give. It is my hope that Members of Congress will not pursue antiwar politics to the detriment of our soldiers in the field. Our soldiers have been fighting courageously in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world to protect each and every American life, and I believe it is incumbent for the Congress to stand behind them. Numerous bills and resolutions have been proposed in the Senate to disapprove of their mission, cap troop levels, withhold funding for the reinforcements, or even completely de-fund the troops serving in Iraq. I cannot and will not support any legislation that I see as unproductive to our current efforts in Iraq, because I believe it places our forces in greater danger and could embolden our enemies to continue their attacks against innocent Iraqis, Americans and our allies. In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January of this year, General Hayden, the Director of the CIA, responded to a question regarding what would happen if we pulled out now from Iraq. Director Hayden responded, Three very quick areas: No. 1, more Iraqis die from the disorder inside Iraq. No. 2, Iraq becomes a safe haven, perhaps more dangerous than the one Al Qaeda had in Afghanistan. And finally, No. 3, the conflict in Iraq bleeds over into the neighborhood and threatens serious regional instability. He went on to state that this directly and immediately threatens the United States homeland because it: provides Al Qaida that which they are attempting to seek in several locations right now, be it Somalia, the tribal area of Pakistan or Anbar province--a safe haven to rival that which they had in Afghanistan. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, GEN David Petraeus supported President Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Baghdad and Anbar province. In response to questioning before that committee, General Petraeus made it clear he believes that the reinforcement of soldiers into Baghdad and Anbar in Iraq will bolster the Iraqis' ability to stabilize their government and defeat the insurgency, instead of allowing them to continue to buck that responsibility, as some have asserted. Many in Congress have stated publicly that this is the last chance the United States has to get it right in Iraq. If that is the case, I feel there is no general better qualified to be in charge of our ground forces and get things turned around on the ground than General Petraeus. I recognize that the American people have grown weary over the last months since the violence has escalated in Iraq, but I remain optimistic that the Iraqi government, with the aid of our soldiers, can turn things around. I had the pleasure of meeting General Petraeus during one of my two trips to Iraq and was very impressed by his knowledge of the situation and his expertise in counterinsurgency. I have no doubt that General Petraeus is the right man to lead our forces in Iraq and I believe that he will overcome the new challenges he now faces. Let us not send the right man and then tell him it is the wrong job. In closing, while I share the concerns of many of my colleagues regarding the situation in Iraq, I will support the President's plan to provide the reinforcements necessary to provide stability in Baghdad and Anbar province. I am hopeful that this plan will give the Iraqi government the best chance to stand on their own two feet and make the positive strides necessary to take control of the security situation and function as a stable government. It is this Senator's personal opinion that resolutions condemning the President's new way forward send the wrong message to our soldiers, the Iraqi people, and especially our enemies. I certainly appreciate and support the role of Congress to provide oversight with respect to U.S. military engagements. However, I do not believe we should cripple the Commander in Chief's ability to work with our military leadership to defeat our enemies, and passing a resolution condemning the President's new plan for Iraq would do precisely that. Instead, I support resolutions that call for the support of the American people and Congress to give the President's plan a chance to work. Mistakes have been made, unquestionably, and the violence in Baghdad and Anbar province has grown to a level that few predicted, but I am not yet ready to throw in the towel on this President's new plan and our soldiers' ability to assist in stabilizing Iraq before they even get a chance to try. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me join with my colleagues on this issue in thanking the Senator from Georgia for withdrawing the amendment. It is possible to say that the concept of adverse wage is an anomaly unto itself, specific to the H-2A program. That is not to suggest it is right. It is to suggest that it was there and it ratcheted up on an automatic basis to establish the wage base for H-2A workers in the guest worker program. The Senator from California is right. As we began to negotiate and create what is now known as AgJOBS, which she and I reintroduced earlier this year, in that was a back-off from the adverse wage and a holding of the line for a period of time to level out. What the Senator from Georgia is attempting to do is establish a new wage rate. I think the Senator from California is right; we are not sure where it would go or what it would mean. I am going to stand here and say that is not to suggest a new wage rate is not the right way to go, to establish equity between H-2A and non-H-2A workers who are doing the same job in the field, or somewhere else in agriculture. But there ought to be a consistency. If we are going to bring large groups of guest workers in--and we will, we always have; there are certain types of work only they will do--then I think we have to be sensitive to the uniqueness of that situation. But at the same time, it is important that we are sensitive to all of the other requirements we put upon the employer as a part of the total employment package. Is it housing? Certain other conditions along with the wage that they necessarily would not have to pay to a domestic worker who was doing comparable wage but was outside the H-2A program? There is a disparity today. That is why we backed it off in the negotiations. H-2A workers, by their definition, were becoming noncompetitive. Of course, in the environment in which we were working, they were becoming noncompetitive to the illegal who was in the market. So you have disparity across the board. I don't dispute what the Senator from Georgia is attempting to do. I visited with some labor attorneys who found it very problematic. If you are going to do this, we ought to work collectively, review it appropriately, apply it against a variety of workforces to see that it is uniform and just for all employees and employers who may, because of their uniqueness, provide certain conditions for the worker that otherwise would not be necessary to provide. I used to be in agriculture. We paid a certain wage. We provided a house and we provided fuel for the rig. We also provided certain grocery and food supplies. That was all viewed as a factor of employment with the employee. There are a variety of things we have to get correct. The Senator from California said it would have muddied the water a great deal. I think it would have frustrated it. I think it would have taken out part of the force that it is valuable that we keep together as we try to reform the H-2A program, deal with the problem we currently have to secure and stabilize a legal, transparent workforce for American agriculture, treat foreign nationals right who come here legally for the purpose of that kind of employment. I don't know that this would have accomplished it. Withdrawing it, coming together with us, trying to resolve this problem I think offers us an opportunity to get our work done on this portion of immigration reform this year. I hope and I know the Senator from California agrees with me. I hope we can accomplish that by the end of the year.

Mr. CRAIG. I agree totally and I agree for all the reasons the Senator from California put forward--and a couple more. One of the things the Congress is committed to--both the Senators on the floor at this moment have voted for it--is to secure our Southwest border. We are investing heavily on that at this moment, and we should be. There is no question about that. We may argue about how many miles of fence, but we all recognize an unsecured border is a very problematic thing. It is closing. It is becoming secure and we are going to continue to invest in it. As we are doing that, all of these other problems are beginning to happen because that workforce is moving around and they are not staying with agriculture. The Senator lost a tremendous amount this year in the San Joaquin, in the greater agricultural area of California. I spoke with young farmers and ranchers of the Idaho Farm Bureau this weekend. We have lost hundreds of millions--nowhere near what the Senator from California has lost, but we have a different kind of agriculture. The intensity of ours, the hand labor of ours is simply not as great as the Senator's. But there is a real problem and that problem is quite simple. If we don't get this corrected, we may well be looking at $5 billion worth of agricultural loss this year, and half of that or more will come from California alone, let alone all the other areas, and I may even be conservative in my guesstimate. So the Senator is absolutely right. Now we are coupled with the natural weather disasters that have hit California and could hit my State at some time in the future. That is typical of agriculture. But, if we provide a stable and secure workforce that is legal, then we have helped our agriculture a great deal in knowing that when they do produce a crop, they have the people there to help them get it out of the field, get it to the processor and ultimately to the retail shelves of America.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I assume this starts this side's period of morning business, to be extended to what time?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I come to the Chamber today to speak about efforts that are now underway in the 110th Congress to deal with an issue the American people have become tremendously sensitized to over the last couple of years--the issue of energy, the availability of energy, and the cost of energy. I believe it is important, as we look at cost and America's reaction to it, to recognize that while Americans are paying a higher price for energy today, there has never yet been a question about the availability of energy and the supply itself. I think we forget that when we paid, in midsummer, $3 at the gas pump for gas and substantially more for diesel, it was always there, it was always available, and that never became the issue. What I believe is important for us today, in the new Congress, under new leadership in the House and the Senate, is to not only focus on the availability of energy but also move ourselves toward being a nation that becomes independent in its ability to produce its own energy--all kinds, in all ways--for the American consumer. I find it fascinating that somehow, in the midst of all of this, we have forgotten that while the energy is still at the pump, the lights still come on when we throw the switch in our house in the morning, and America is awash in the use of energy, we have become increasingly dependent on foreign sources for a substantial portion of the very energy that moves this country. Here is a chart which I think demonstrates that. Today, arguably, we have become 60 percent dependent upon someone else producing our hydrocarbons--our oil to produce our gas and our diesel and, of course, the plastics our country uses as a derivative of that. In this new Congress, we should focus as aggressively as we did in the last Congress in the creation of the National Energy Policy Act of 2005. We ought to now move a major step forward toward energy independence by not only encouraging the increased production of all forms of energy but looking to see if Government stands in the way of that. Is Government promoting it or are we inhibiting it and forcing those who supply our energy to progressively seek offshore sources of that supply? The new Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that I serve on, under the guidance of Jeff Bingaman, recently held a hearing on who supplies the oil for the world. Is it ExxonMobil? No. Is it Conoco? No. Is it Phillips? No, even though we think it is because that is where we get our fuel when we go to the gas pump. What we found out and what many have known is that 80 percent of the world's oil supplies are controlled by governments. And they are not our Government. They are controlled by government or government-owned companies. I recently gave a speech to a group of oil producers. I talked about petro nationalism and a growing concern in this country that the world that supplies this portion of our oil can use their political muscle but, more importantly, the valve on the pipeline of the oil supply, to determine the kind of politics and international relations they want to have with us, knowing how we have become so dependent upon that supply. I hope we continue to focus on supply and availability instead of doing what some are saying we are going to do. We are going to punish the oil companies because they are making too much money. We are going to tax them, and we are going to tax the consumer because somehow that will produce more oil? No, no, no. That is politics, folks. That is, plain and simply, big-time politics, to show the consumer you are macho, that somehow you will knock down the big boys who supply the oil. Ask the questions, if you are a consumer: Will that keep oil at the pump? Will that keep gas available to me? Will that produce more gas to bring down the price? Those are the legitimate questions that ought to be answered when the leadership of the new Senate says: No, we will muscle up to the big boys and knock 'em down because somehow they may be price gouging. Yet investigation after investigation after investigation suggests that is quite the opposite. That simply is not happening. Nowhere are they going to tell you in all of this political rhetoric that I would hope would take us toward energy independence and a greater sense of energy security in our country that the new deep wells we are drilling in the gulf that produce or new oil supply could cost upward of $1 billion a well in actual expenses before the oil begins to flow out of that well and into the ships or into the pipelines that take it to the refineries that ultimately put it in the pipeline that get it to the consumers' pumps. And the issue goes on and on. I hope that in this Congress, while some will want to play politics, a good many will focus on the reality not only of what we have done, which has been very successful in the last few years--and that is the Energy Policy Act of 2005--but go on with the business of setting goals and driving incentives that move us to energy independence. It is phenomenally important we do that as a country. Long-term investment, new technologies, clean sources of energy are going to become increasingly important. But more important is that we can stand as a Nation and say we are independent of the political pressures of the Middle East or the political pressures of Venezuela or the political pressures of Central Europe and Russia, that now control the world's supply of oil. That is what Americans ought to be asking our Congress at this time. Are you going to ensure an increased supply? Are you going to ensure a greater sense of independence by the reality of where our oil comes from? This is not just an issue of oil. We know it is an issue of new technology. It is an issue of cleanness. It is an issue of nonemitting greenhouse gas sources of energy because today we are all about clean energy. And we ought to be. Yet we understand the agenda for climate change is going to be a punitive one, one that would obviously distort a market's growth toward cleaner supplies. It is called cap and trade or command and control instead of saying, yes, that is the old technology. Now let's invest in new technologies. Instead of penalizing, let's create the incentives that move toward new technologies and let us then lay down the old. That is how we cause America to become increasingly energy independent. I am talking climate change. The Speaker of the House yesterday did something very fascinating. She couldn't get the climate change she wanted out of her own committee so she has created a new select committee on climate change to be headed up by Representative Ed Markey. I remember Representative Markey over the years: All antinuclear, day after day, year after year. He lost that battle. Americans said: You are not going to go there anymore. You are going to start producing energy because it is clean. Now he has been assigned a select committee on climate change. Congressman Dingell, who chairs the appropriate committee, said select committees are about as useful as feathers on a fish. Congressman Dingell gets it right. What is useful, what is important in the argument of climate change, is new technology, it is incentives, it is producing energy in today's market that is, by any dimension, cleaner than what we produced in the past. You do not penalize the producer, you incentivize the producer to make sure that they move in the direction of clean energy. When you do that, you also say, as we said in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and as we sought to say again and again and again to the consumer, we are going to provide you with the tools to conserve, to become more efficient in your use of energy. All of those things, in combination over the next 10 to 15 years, clearly ought to allow this country to stand up and say we have narrowed this gap; we are more independent as a Nation today in our supply of energy than we were in 2007, and we are more independent because our Government stood up, got out of the way, incentivized, created those kinds of tools that the private sector could effectively use for an ever-increasing supply of clean energy and that we, as consumers, were given the tools to become more efficient in the use of those clean supplies of energy. I hope that ought to be and will become the mission of this new Congress, not to play games with the politics they thought brought them to power but to realize that the American consumer still is going to ask that the gas pump be full of energy, that the light switch supplies electricity in the morning and that, hopefully, it will come in a cleaner form and it won't cost any more than it has cost in the past in relation to cost of living and inflation. Those are the realities of a marketplace that we ought to help, not penalize. Is that politically wise to do? In the long run, it is very politically wise to do because then America can stand on its own two feet. It will not have to bow to the suppliers, such as Russia and the Middle East, and to let a dictator in Venezuela jerk us around because he has a major supply of oil. We can say: No, we supply our own. We are independent. We have been responsible in doing so, and we did it in a clean and diverse way. It is a phenomenal challenge for us but a challenge that is important to meet.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the last Congress worked long and hard to resolve one of the most contentious issues of our time: immigration. As many of our colleagues know, while a number of border enforcement measures were enacted, we did not complete all the critical elements of a comprehensive strategy on immigration reform. Today, I am joining with Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Specter, Leahy, Martinez, Voinovich, McCain, Hagel, Domenici, Boxer, Clinton, Obama, Kohl, Salazar, Murray, and Schumer in reintroducing legislation to address a very important piece of that unfinished business: the establishment of a workable, secure, effective temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with jobs that Americans are unwilling or unable to perform. Our legislation is specific to U.S. agriculture, because this economic sector, more than any other, has become dependent for its existence on the labor of immigrants who are here without legal documentation. The only program currently in place to respond to a lack of legal domestic agricultural workers, the H-2A Guest Worker Program, is profoundly broken. Outside of H-2A, farm employers have no effective, reliable assurance that their employees are legal. The bill we are reintroducing is called AgJOBS--the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act. This bill was part of the comprehensive immigration legislation passed last year by the Senate. Today's version incorporates a few language changes that update, but do not substantively amend, that measure. We are reintroducing AgJOBS to fix the serious flaws that plague our country's current agricultural labor system. Agriculture has unique workforce needs because of the special nature of its products and production, and our bill addresses those needs. Our bill offers a thoughtful, thorough, two-step solution. On a one- time basis, experienced, trusted workers with a significant work history in American agriculture would be allowed to stay here legally and earn adjustment to legal status. For workers and growers using the H-2A legal guest worker program, that program would be overhauled and made more streamlined, practical, and secure. This legislation has been tested and examined for years in the Senate and House of Representatives, and it remains the best alternative for resolving urgent problems in our agriculture that require immediate attention. That is why AgJOBS has been endorsed by a historic, broad- based coalition of more than 400 national, State, and local organizations, including farmworkers, growers, the general business community, Latino and immigration issue groups, taxpayer groups, other public interest organizations, State directors of agriculture, and religious groups. We all want and need a stable, predictable, legal workforce in American agriculture. Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in line for available jobs with fair market wages. All workers should receive decent treatment and protection of fundamental legal rights. Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply. American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders and a government that works. AgJOBS would serve all these goals. Last year, we saw millions of dollars' worth of produce rot in the fields for lack of workers. We are beginning to hear talk of farms moving out of the country, moving to the foreign workforce. All Americans face the danger of losing more and more of our safe, domestic food supply to imports. Time is running out for American agriculture, farmworkers, and consumers. What was a problem years ago is a crisis today and will be a catastrophe if we do not act immediately. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their support for U.S. agriculture by cosponsoring the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--AgJOBS 2007-- and by helping us pass this critical legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the last Congress worked long and hard to resolve one of the most contentious issues of our time: immigration. As many of our colleagues know, while a number of border enforcement measures were enacted, we did not complete all the critical elements of a comprehensive strategy on immigration reform. Today, I am joining with Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Specter, Leahy, Martinez, Voinovich, McCain, Hagel, Domenici, Boxer, Clinton, Obama, Kohl, Salazar, Murray, and Schumer in reintroducing legislation to address a very important piece of that unfinished business: the establishment of a workable, secure, effective temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with jobs that Americans are unwilling or unable to perform. Our legislation is specific to U.S. agriculture, because this economic sector, more than any other, has become dependent for its existence on the labor of immigrants who are here without legal documentation. The only program currently in place to respond to a lack of legal domestic agricultural workers, the H-2A Guest Worker Program, is profoundly broken. Outside of H-2A, farm employers have no effective, reliable assurance that their employees are legal. The bill we are reintroducing is called AgJOBS--the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act. This bill was part of the comprehensive immigration legislation passed last year by the Senate. Today's version incorporates a few language changes that update, but do not substantively amend, that measure. We are reintroducing AgJOBS to fix the serious flaws that plague our country's current agricultural labor system. Agriculture has unique workforce needs because of the special nature of its products and production, and our bill addresses those needs. Our bill offers a thoughtful, thorough, two-step solution. On a one- time basis, experienced, trusted workers with a significant work history in American agriculture would be allowed to stay here legally and earn adjustment to legal status. For workers and growers using the H-2A legal guest worker program, that program would be overhauled and made more streamlined, practical, and secure. This legislation has been tested and examined for years in the Senate and House of Representatives, and it remains the best alternative for resolving urgent problems in our agriculture that require immediate attention. That is why AgJOBS has been endorsed by a historic, broad- based coalition of more than 400 national, State, and local organizations, including farmworkers, growers, the general business community, Latino and immigration issue groups, taxpayer groups, other public interest organizations, State directors of agriculture, and religious groups. We all want and need a stable, predictable, legal workforce in American agriculture. Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in line for available jobs with fair market wages. All workers should receive decent treatment and protection of fundamental legal rights. Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply. American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders and a government that works. AgJOBS would serve all these goals. Last year, we saw millions of dollars' worth of produce rot in the fields for lack of workers. We are beginning to hear talk of farms moving out of the country, moving to the foreign workforce. All Americans face the danger of losing more and more of our safe, domestic food supply to imports. Time is running out for American agriculture, farmworkers, and consumers. What was a problem years ago is a crisis today and will be a catastrophe if we do not act immediately. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their support for U.S. agriculture by cosponsoring the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--AgJOBS 2007-- and by helping us pass this critical legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the last Congress worked long and hard to resolve one of the most contentious issues of our time: immigration. As many of our colleagues know, while a number of border enforcement measures were enacted, we did not complete all the critical elements of a comprehensive strategy on immigration reform. Yesterday, I joined with Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Martinez, Voinovich, and Boxer in reintroducing legislation to address a very important piece of that unfinished business: the establishment of a workable, secure, effective temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with jobs that Americans are unwilling or unable to perform. Our legislation is specific to U.S. agriculture because this economic sector, more than any other, has become dependent for its existence on the labor of immigrants who are here without legal documentation. The only program currently in place to respond to a lack of legal domestic agricultural workers, the H-2A guest worker program, is profoundly broken. Outside of H-2A, farm employers have no effective, reliable assurance that their employees are legal. The bill we reintroduced is called AgJOBS--the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act. This bill was part of the comprehensive immigration legislation passed last year by the Senate. Today's version incorporates a few language changes that update, but do not substantively amend, that measure. We are reintroducing AgJOBS to fix the serious flaws that plague our country's current agricultural labor system. Agriculture has unique workforce needs because of the special nature of its products and production, and our bill addresses those needs. Our bill offers a thoughtful, thorough, two-step solution. On a one- time basis, experienced, trusted workers with a significant work history in American agriculture would be allowed to stay here legally and earn adjustment to legal status. For workers and growers using the H-2A legal guest worker program, that program would be overhauled and made more streamlined, practical, and secure. This legislation has been tested and examined for years in the Senate and House of Representatives, and it remains the best alternative for resolving urgent problems in our agriculture that require immediate attention. That is why AgJOBS has been endorsed by a historic, broad- based coalition of more than 400 national, State, and local organizations, including farmworkers, growers, the general business community, Latino and immigration issue groups, taxpayer groups, other public interest organizations, State directors of agriculture, and religious groups. We all want and need a stable, predictable, legal workforce in American agriculture. Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in line for available jobs with fair market wages. All workers should receive decent treatment and protection of fundamental legal rights. Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply. American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders and a government that works. AgJOBS would serve all these goals. Last year, we saw millions of dollars' worth of produce rot in the fields for lack of workers. We are beginning to hear talk of farms moving out of the country, moving to the foreign workforce. All Americans face the danger of losing more and more of our safe, domestic food supply to imports. Time is running out for American agriculture, farmworkers, and consumers. What was a problem years ago is a crisis today and will be a catastrophe if we do not act immediately. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their support for U.S. agriculture by cosponsoring the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--AgJOBS 2007-- and by helping us pass this critical legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Enzi, Stevens, Bennett, Murkowski, and Bunning, the National Geologic Maping Reauthorization Act of 2007. This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves to be reauthorized. The National Geologic Mapping Act was originally signed into law in 1992, creating the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP). This program exists as a partnership between the USGS and the State geological surveys, whose purpose is to provide the Nation with urgently-needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, and geology essential for all types of land use planning; as well as providing basic scientific data. The NCGMP contains three parts; FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, StateMap--the State geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our colleges and universities. All three components are reviewed annually by a Federal Advisory Committee to ensure program effectiveness and to provide future guidance. FedMap geologic mapping priorities are determined by the needs of Federal land-management agencies, regional customer forums, and cooperatively with the State geological surveys. FedMap also coordinates national geologic mapping standards. StateMap is a competitive program wherein the States submit proposals for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of this section of the legislation is that each Federal dollar be matched one-for-one with State funds. Each participating State has a State Advisory Committee to ensure that its proposal addresses priority areas and needs as determined in the NGMA. The success of this program ensured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 and in 1999 with widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. To date, millions of dollars been awarded to State geological surveys through StateMap, and these Federal dollars have been more than matched by State dollars. The high quality geologic maps produced will be used by a very broad base of customers including geotechnical consultants, Federal, State and local land managers, and mineral and energy exploration companies. Information on how to obtain all of these maps is provided on the Internet by the National Geologic Map Database, allowing ease of access for all users. EdMap has trained over 550 university students at 118 universities across the Nation. The best testament to the quality of this training are its beneficiaries--an unusually high percentage of these students go on to careers in Earth Science, becoming university professors, energy company exploration scientists, or mapping specialists themselves. Their EdMap program experience provides them with a remarkable self-confidence, having completed a difficult and independent field mapping experience. The National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate, usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so that safe, educated resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Enzi, Stevens, Bennett, Murkowski, and Bunning, the National Geologic Maping Reauthorization Act of 2007. This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves to be reauthorized. The National Geologic Mapping Act was originally signed into law in 1992, creating the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP). This program exists as a partnership between the USGS and the State geological surveys, whose purpose is to provide the Nation with urgently-needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, and geology essential for all types of land use planning; as well as providing basic scientific data. The NCGMP contains three parts; FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, StateMap--the State geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our colleges and universities. All three components are reviewed annually by a Federal Advisory Committee to ensure program effectiveness and to provide future guidance. FedMap geologic mapping priorities are determined by the needs of Federal land-management agencies, regional customer forums, and cooperatively with the State geological surveys. FedMap also coordinates national geologic mapping standards. StateMap is a competitive program wherein the States submit proposals for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of this section of the legislation is that each Federal dollar be matched one-for-one with State funds. Each participating State has a State Advisory Committee to ensure that its proposal addresses priority areas and needs as determined in the NGMA. The success of this program ensured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 and in 1999 with widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. To date, millions of dollars been awarded to State geological surveys through StateMap, and these Federal dollars have been more than matched by State dollars. The high quality geologic maps produced will be used by a very broad base of customers including geotechnical consultants, Federal, State and local land managers, and mineral and energy exploration companies. Information on how to obtain all of these maps is provided on the Internet by the National Geologic Map Database, allowing ease of access for all users. EdMap has trained over 550 university students at 118 universities across the Nation. The best testament to the quality of this training are its beneficiaries--an unusually high percentage of these students go on to careers in Earth Science, becoming university professors, energy company exploration scientists, or mapping specialists themselves. Their EdMap program experience provides them with a remarkable self-confidence, having completed a difficult and independent field mapping experience. The National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate, usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so that safe, educated resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2007. This Act authorizes prepayment by landowners of their allocated portion of the obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within A&B Irrigation District and will allow individual landowners to prepay their obligations if they so desire. Additionally, the Act will allow the landowners who have prepaid to be exempt from the acreage limitation provisions set in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, thereby creating an appropriate market for the sale of those lands now owned by landowners who have either died or have retired. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this necessary bill through the legislative process quickly.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation that I introduced last November along with the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, and that I am again introducing today. The bill would expand the number of eligible recipients of retroactive payments under the Traumatic Injury Protection under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, or ``TSGLI'', benefit. Most of my colleagues have perhaps heard the story of how this important benefit became law and what its intended purpose is, but I believe it is worth repeating. In April of 2005 I was visited by three servicemembers who were seriously injured during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). They were members of an organization called the Wounded Warrior Project, and they told me of their lengthy recovery times at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the financial toll that that period of convalescence had on them and their families. They talked about wives, parents, and other relatives who had taken long absences from work, and some who had even quit their work, in order to spend time with those recovering at Walter Reed. And they told me that the Department of Veterans Affairs compensation system was no help because, by law, those benefits do not kick in until after separation from service. Based on their experiences, these wounded warriors recommended that I pursue legislation to create a new insurance benefit for those with traumatic injuries such as theirs. The insurance would pay between $25,000 and $100,000 as soon as possible after an injury occurred, thereby bridging the gap in assistance needed during the time of a wounded servicemember's recovery and the time of his or her separation from service. They asked that I make the legislation prospective only, meaning that they, and hundreds of others, would go without any TSGLI payment. I honored that request and, together with Senator Akaka and other Members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, introduced an amendment to the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill then pending before the Senate. A second degree amendment was later unanimously agreed to which authorized retroactive benefit payments to all of those injured in the Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) theaters of operation--providing for TSGLI payments to hundreds of servicemembers who had been seriously injured since the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, the retroactive TSGLI provision was consistent with other retroactive benefits approved within the Emergency Supplemental bill, such as $238,000 in combined Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) and death gratuity benefits that were provided retroactively to survivors of those killed in combat operations since the start of the War on Terror. Needless to say, the TSGLI amendments were approved by the Congress and enacted into law. Fast forward to the present. TSGLI has been up and running since December 1, 2005, and provides financial assistance of $25,000 to $100,000 to traumatically injured servicemembers within, on average, 60 days of the date of the injury causing event. As of January 5, 2007, almost 2,233 wounded OIF/OEF servicemembers have benefited under the retroactive portion of the program. For those with injuries post December 1, 2005, it does not matter if an injury occurs as a result of combat operations or training exercises--payment under TSGLI is available in either situation; 626 wounded servicemembers have benefited under this aspect of the program. The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the TSGLI benefit in September 2006. The Committee received testimony from the Wounded Warrior Project, the organization largely responsible for TSGLI's conception. While very pleased with the program overall, a serious concern was raised regarding the equity of only extending retroactive TSGLI payments to those injured during Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Mr. Jeremy Chwat, testifying for the Wounded Warrior Project that day, used the example of one servicemember as representative of others who are not now eligible for benefits: Brave men and women like Seaman Robert Roeder who was injured on January 29, 2005 when an arresting wire on the aircraft carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, severed his left leg below the knee . . . Although the ship was on its way to the Gulf and the training exercises being conducted were in preparation for action in either Operation Enduring or Iraqi Freedom, Robert's injury does not qualify for payment. Furthermore, since enactment of the 2005 Emergency Supplemental, retroactive SGLI and death gratuity benefits combining $238,000 have been expanded to provide payments to survivors of all servicemembers who died on active duty, whether in combat or not. The reason behind the expansion of retroactive benefits was a recognition that military service is universal in character; that each military man or woman, no matter where they are serving, contributes in a unique way to make the United States Armed Forces second to none. The legislation I am again introducing today, along with Senator Akaka, will make the TSGLI retroactive payment eligibility criteria consistent with the other benefit program retroactive payment criteria I just mentioned. Thus, if this legislation is enacted, all traumatically injured servicemembers who served between October 7, 2001, and December 1, 2005, will be eligible for TSGLI payments, irrespective of where their injuries occurred. Unofficial estimates from VA suggest that there may be over 215 active duty personnel who, like Seaman Roeder, sustained traumatic injuries during this time period while performing their military duties. Both the Wounded Warrior Project and the National Military Families Association have expressed their support for this bill. And I now ask my colleagues for their support. This is the right thing to do for our military men and women. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill text be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2007. This Act authorizes prepayment by landowners of their allocated portion of the obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within A&B Irrigation District and will allow individual landowners to prepay their obligations if they so desire. Additionally, the Act will allow the landowners who have prepaid to be exempt from the acreage limitation provisions set in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, thereby creating an appropriate market for the sale of those lands now owned by landowners who have either died or have retired. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this necessary bill through the legislative process quickly.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation that I introduced last November along with the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, and that I am again introducing today. The bill would expand the number of eligible recipients of retroactive payments under the Traumatic Injury Protection under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, or ``TSGLI'', benefit. Most of my colleagues have perhaps heard the story of how this important benefit became law and what its intended purpose is, but I believe it is worth repeating. In April of 2005 I was visited by three servicemembers who were seriously injured during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). They were members of an organization called the Wounded Warrior Project, and they told me of their lengthy recovery times at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the financial toll that that period of convalescence had on them and their families. They talked about wives, parents, and other relatives who had taken long absences from work, and some who had even quit their work, in order to spend time with those recovering at Walter Reed. And they told me that the Department of Veterans Affairs compensation system was no help because, by law, those benefits do not kick in until after separation from service. Based on their experiences, these wounded warriors recommended that I pursue legislation to create a new insurance benefit for those with traumatic injuries such as theirs. The insurance would pay between $25,000 and $100,000 as soon as possible after an injury occurred, thereby bridging the gap in assistance needed during the time of a wounded servicemember's recovery and the time of his or her separation from service. They asked that I make the legislation prospective only, meaning that they, and hundreds of others, would go without any TSGLI payment. I honored that request and, together with Senator Akaka and other Members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, introduced an amendment to the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill then pending before the Senate. A second degree amendment was later unanimously agreed to which authorized retroactive benefit payments to all of those injured in the Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) theaters of operation--providing for TSGLI payments to hundreds of servicemembers who had been seriously injured since the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, the retroactive TSGLI provision was consistent with other retroactive benefits approved within the Emergency Supplemental bill, such as $238,000 in combined Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) and death gratuity benefits that were provided retroactively to survivors of those killed in combat operations since the start of the War on Terror. Needless to say, the TSGLI amendments were approved by the Congress and enacted into law. Fast forward to the present. TSGLI has been up and running since December 1, 2005, and provides financial assistance of $25,000 to $100,000 to traumatically injured servicemembers within, on average, 60 days of the date of the injury causing event. As of January 5, 2007, almost 2,233 wounded OIF/OEF servicemembers have benefited under the retroactive portion of the program. For those with injuries post December 1, 2005, it does not matter if an injury occurs as a result of combat operations or training exercises--payment under TSGLI is available in either situation; 626 wounded servicemembers have benefited under this aspect of the program. The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the TSGLI benefit in September 2006. The Committee received testimony from the Wounded Warrior Project, the organization largely responsible for TSGLI's conception. While very pleased with the program overall, a serious concern was raised regarding the equity of only extending retroactive TSGLI payments to those injured during Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Mr. Jeremy Chwat, testifying for the Wounded Warrior Project that day, used the example of one servicemember as representative of others who are not now eligible for benefits: Brave men and women like Seaman Robert Roeder who was injured on January 29, 2005 when an arresting wire on the aircraft carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, severed his left leg below the knee . . . Although the ship was on its way to the Gulf and the training exercises being conducted were in preparation for action in either Operation Enduring or Iraqi Freedom, Robert's injury does not qualify for payment. Furthermore, since enactment of the 2005 Emergency Supplemental, retroactive SGLI and death gratuity benefits combining $238,000 have been expanded to provide payments to survivors of all servicemembers who died on active duty, whether in combat or not. The reason behind the expansion of retroactive benefits was a recognition that military service is universal in character; that each military man or woman, no matter where they are serving, contributes in a unique way to make the United States Armed Forces second to none. The legislation I am again introducing today, along with Senator Akaka, will make the TSGLI retroactive payment eligibility criteria consistent with the other benefit program retroactive payment criteria I just mentioned. Thus, if this legislation is enacted, all traumatically injured servicemembers who served between October 7, 2001, and December 1, 2005, will be eligible for TSGLI payments, irrespective of where their injuries occurred. Unofficial estimates from VA suggest that there may be over 215 active duty personnel who, like Seaman Roeder, sustained traumatic injuries during this time period while performing their military duties. Both the Wounded Warrior Project and the National Military Families Association have expressed their support for this bill. And I now ask my colleagues for their support. This is the right thing to do for our military men and women. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill text be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. CRAIG pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 1 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I, for some years, along with my colleagues in a bipartisan way, have spoke to this issue. Today, in a new year and in a new Congress, Americans are eager to see a new direction for our country. They have seen Federal spending increase by $200 billion from fiscal years 2005 to 2006. They have watched the Federal deficit swell into hundreds of billions of dollars, and they have borne the costs. Our spending system is broken and, in my opinion, so is our Tax Code. The new year is a time for new solutions to this problem. When new solutions that draw upon old principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility and tax simplicity and fairness are how you approach a problem, I think Americans once again will listen, and they will allow us to build a system that increasingly builds faith, once again, with the American people and America's taxpayers. It is simply getting back to basics. We must look at the big picture of Federal spending as a crisis in our country and begin to speak the language that is fundamental to reform in itself, not instead of half measures or bits or pieces or nibbling around the edges. But as both of our leaders have spoken in the last hour to bipartisan efforts, they speak of bold strokes to solving problems for America, and I think that is what Americans expect of us as their leaders. We must look at it simply and reduce the deficit--I would hope we could eliminate it--and to do so with a Tax Code that is fairer, more balanced, certainly simpler, and not so complex that the American taxpayers collectively have to spend billions of dollars a year simply in complying with the Tax Code itself. In the coming months, I will address all three components of the Federal spending crisis, including a flat tax and a budget process that reforms what we get done here, and that we get it done in a timely manner. I begin with a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. For many Americans, one of the signs of our deep respect for the Constitution is to acknowledge that, in exceptional cases, a problem finally rises to a level that it can only be addressed through a constitutional adjustment in our government. I believe spending is at that crisis level and we here, Democrat and Republican, have demonstrated our inability to deal with it in a timely and responsible fashion. So it is time we act. My balanced budget amendment would require Congress to pass a balanced budget every year to ensure that Social Security surpluses are set aside exclusively to meet the future needs of beneficiaries and to require a supermajority in both the House and the Senate to raise the Nation's debt limit. In addition, it recognizes that national security is a priority of this Congress by providing essential exceptions for war and imminent military threats. In other words, over the last several years a balanced budget amendment would not have deterred us from funding, as appropriate and necessary, our engagement in Iraq and to make sure the men and women who are there on the front lines today are adequately provided with the necessary tools. Thomas Jefferson said it so well, and he said this: . . .with respect to future debt, would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt than they may pay? His logic is simple. His logic is right. I urge you to join me in making fiscal responsibility constitutionally acceptable--and a habit-- of this Nation's Capitol. With the first piece of legislation I introduce to the 110th Congress, I call on the Senate to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a bill of economic rights for our future and our children. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Today on the first day of the 110th Congress, I wish to recognize the accomplishment of the Boise State University Broncos football team this past Monday, January 1, 2007. College sports have a way of putting schools, and cities, on the map. For instance, George Mason University was virtually unknown until their basketball team catapulted into the national spotlight through March Madness last year. However, no sport is more adept at this than the all-American sport of football. On New Year's Day, Boise State University battled Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. One announcer commented that, until today, many of the Oklahoma football players didn't even know where Boise is. Well, Mr. President, they do now. In what is being described as one of the most thrilling games in the history of college bowl games, the Broncos defeated Oklahoma 43 to 42. I can't begin to describe to you the enthusiasm of the Bronco fans before, during, and especially after the game. It was contagious. And that is coming from a proud Idaho Vandal. Idaho is a small State. We haven't had nationally known sports teams. It wasn't too long ago that Boise State was only known in football circles for its blue football field. On the first day of 2007, that all changed. I am proud of what our Broncos did proving to the Nation that Idaho knows how to play football. With this new notoriety, of course, comes an opportunity for us to tell the country that Idaho's State-run universities have a lot to offer besides great football. Between Boise State, the University of Idaho, and Idaho State University, Idaho offers tremendous education with a quality of life that can't be beat. Boise, Idaho is now on the map of millions of college football fans thanks to our Broncos. To them I say congratulations and thank you.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I, for some years, along with my colleagues in a bipartisan way, have spoke to this issue. Today, in a new year and in a new Congress, Americans are eager to see a new direction for our country. They have seen Federal spending increase by $200 billion from fiscal years 2005 to 2006. They have watched the Federal deficit swell into hundreds of billions of dollars, and they have borne the costs. Our spending system is broken and, in my opinion, so is our Tax Code. The new year is a time for new solutions to this problem. When new solutions that draw upon old principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility and tax simplicity and fairness are how you approach a problem, I think Americans once again will listen, and they will allow us to build a system that increasingly builds faith, once again, with the American people and America's taxpayers. It is simply getting back to basics. We must look at the big picture of Federal spending as a crisis in our country and begin to speak the language that is fundamental to reform in itself, not instead of half measures or bits or pieces or nibbling around the edges. But as both of our leaders have spoken in the last hour to bipartisan efforts, they speak of bold strokes to solving problems for America, and I think that is what Americans expect of us as their leaders. We must look at it simply and reduce the deficit--I would hope we could eliminate it--and to do so with a Tax Code that is fairer, more balanced, certainly simpler, and not so complex that the American taxpayers collectively have to spend billions of dollars a year simply in complying with the Tax Code itself. In the coming months, I will address all three components of the Federal spending crisis, including a flat tax and a budget process that reforms what we get done here, and that we get it done in a timely manner. I begin with a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. For many Americans, one of the signs of our deep respect for the Constitution is to acknowledge that, in exceptional cases, a problem finally rises to a level that it can only be addressed through a constitutional adjustment in our government. I believe spending is at that crisis level and we here, Democrat and Republican, have demonstrated our inability to deal with it in a timely and responsible fashion. So it is time we act. My balanced budget amendment would require Congress to pass a balanced budget every year to ensure that Social Security surpluses are set aside exclusively to meet the future needs of beneficiaries and to require a supermajority in both the House and the Senate to raise the Nation's debt limit. In addition, it recognizes that national security is a priority of this Congress by providing essential exceptions for war and imminent military threats. In other words, over the last several years a balanced budget amendment would not have deterred us from funding, as appropriate and necessary, our engagement in Iraq and to make sure the men and women who are there on the front lines today are adequately provided with the necessary tools. Thomas Jefferson said it so well, and he said this: . . .with respect to future debt, would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt than they may pay? His logic is simple. His logic is right. I urge you to join me in making fiscal responsibility constitutionally acceptable--and a habit-- of this Nation's Capitol. With the first piece of legislation I introduce to the 110th Congress, I call on the Senate to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a bill of economic rights for our future and our children. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is the current status on the floor?