Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition in these waning hours of the 109th Congress to provide a summary of the good work accomplished over the last 2 years on behalf of America's veterans, and to comment on comprehensive legislation that is now pending in the Senate. I provide this summary in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a title I will soon pass on to my friend, Senator Danny Akaka of Hawaii. Before the 109th Congress convened, I made a decision to serve as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for two fundamental reasons. The first and most important was that our country was at war and continues to be at war, and a nation at war, with hundreds of thousands of young men and women having spent extensive tours overseas in hostile lands, fighting for our country, deserves the full attention of the Senate. Many have died during the course of combat operations. Others have been seriously wounded. Thousands more will transition out of the military service in the coming years and will attempt to reenter the workforce or go to school under the Montgomery GI bill. There simply was no greater calling than for me to assume the leadership role to ensure our Government was effectively assisting the current generation of America's veterans and their families. Second, I have always been nonplused, I guess, at the characterization that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs was a ``B'' committee. This characterization exists despite these facts. Mr. President, 24 million Americans have served in the military and are potentially eligible for VA-administered benefits. In addition, VA will soon have a budget over $80 billion, which is one of the largest and fastest growing budgets within Government. And finally, VA has the second largest Federal workforce of any Government agency. Therefore, it was my goal to elevate the committee's profile and the importance of the veterans' benefits and services by embarking on a course of vigorous oversight and legislative effort and, I believe, accomplishment. It is my humble opinion that I share the credit with 13 other members of the committee. One of them is here on the floor with me, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who also served not only on the authorizing committee with me but chairs VA MilCon and has played a critical role in veterans issues. We have been diligent and active participants of the committee, and the business of this committee, in my opinion, has been extremely productive in the last 2 years. The committee held 52 hearings during the 109th Congress. From the start, our focus was on the combat wounded, the combat deceased, and their families. We held a hearing on the difficulty that surviving spouses have in getting timely and effective, consistent information regarding their benefits following the active-duty death of their loved one. We held several hearings on whether returned combat veterans are provided with a seamless transition--many of us have heard those words used--from active duty to civilian life. We are still working with DOD on that, to make sure it is truly seamless. We focused on medical and vocational needs of our severely wounded. We examined the research being done within the VA to advance our understanding of various diseases and disabilities confronting veterans in the hope that advances in medical science and technology could one day improve their lives. And there is clear evidence today that that very thing is happening. The committee was particularly active in examining VA's budget needs, and no one can argue about the high priority this Congress placed on funding the VA system. The total VA budget will have increased from approximately $63 billion at the end of fiscal year 2004 to over $80 billion upon enactment of a fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill, an increase of 27 percent. In addition to resources provided, this Congress has put in place a system of accountability to ensure that the appropriations provided to VA are being used to meet the needs of those who rely on the vital health care provided by VA facilities around the Nation. By law, VA now submits quarterly reports to the Congress on its budget that contain a comparison between VA's planned expenditures and actual expenditures. More importantly, VA is required to include quality indicators in this report, such as the percentage of primary care appointments scheduled within 30 days of a patient's desired date. I am confident that the Congress has the mechanisms in place to know, on short order, if VA's budget needs are outpacing its resources, and is therefore equipped to take swift remedial action if necessary. On the legislative front, the Senate has continued to do the work expected of it by the men and women we serve and represent. Let me give a quick accounting of the legislative provisions that were enacted into law during this Congress: First S. 1234 and S. 2562. In both the first and second sessions of the Congress, cost-of-living-adjustment legislation was enacted to increase the rates of disability compensation and survivors' compensation. Benefit rates were increased by 4.1 percent for 2006 and will be increased by 3.3 percent for 2007. Second, Traumatic Injury Protection under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, T-SGLI. In many instances the wives, parents, and other family members of servicemembers who are traumatically injured incur substantial financial obligations in order to spend time with their loved ones during recovery periods at military hospitals. Under the provisions of Public Law 109-13, those traumatically wounded since the start of OIF and OEF as a result of combat wounds are eligible for financial payments which range from $25,000 to $100,000 for qualifying injuries, depending on severity. To date, more than 2.500 wounded servicemembers have received payments as a direct result of this legislation. As of December 1, 2005, all servicemembers and Reservists insured under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program are also covered under the T-SGLI benefit. The coverage extends to all qualifying injuries regardless of whether injuries are incurred as a result of combat. Under the provisions of H.R. 3200, the maximum coverage for members of the Armed Forces and veterans of the Service Members Group Life Insurance and the Veterans Group Life Insurance benefit was increased from $250,000 to $400,000. The bill, as enacted, also requires that spouses be notified when members insured under T-SGLI elect less than maximum coverage or designate a beneficiary other than the spouse or the children or the child. In fiscal year 2006, the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 1815, under provisions of H.R. 1815 and as a result of veterans committees oversights, the Department of Defense was directed to provide customized integrated information to survivors of those killed on active duty about their future Federal benefits through an Internet Web site. I was amazed when we started these hearings that we were still dealing with a hodgepodge of approaches of how we dealt with the surviving spouse of a lost one. DOD was also directed to develop a uniform policy on providing casualty assistance to survivors. I would like to especially thank Senators Warner and Levin for their cooperation on that bill. Also under H.R. 1815, a provision was adopted to prohibit military funeral honors and burial in VA national cemeteries and in Arlington National Cemetery to any person who is convicted of a Federal or State capital murder for which a sentence of death or life in prison may be imposed We had an example of a fellow from Maryland who had killed two elderly people and was sentenced to death, died in prison, and was buried at Arlington. This provision was adopted following our committee's oversight and hearing of that double murder that I just expressed. I will speak more to my colleagues about the status of the double murder incident in a moment. In June of 2006 President Bush signed into law S. 1235, a bill to help severely injured servicemembers in their transition from the military to their civilian lives. It authorizes VA to make grants available--ranging from $2,000 to $14,000--to assist with housing adaptations on a family member's home in which a severely disabled veteran is living. It allows servicemembers, who have been legally determined 100 percent disabled when they separated from the military, up to 2 years from that date to apply for premium-free Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage. Finally, it enables them to convert their coverage to Veterans' Group Life Insurance, or an individual plan or policy, during the same 2-year period. As to H.R. 5037, undoubtedly most of my colleagues are aware of the fringe group which has used its protected free speech rights to deliberately disrupt funerals of our military heroes. That is why the Senate voted unanimously to put reasonable restrictions on demonstrations at VA cemeteries and Arlington National Cemetery. An amendment was put forward on the floor of the Senate balancing the rights of grieving families to a dignified funeral ceremony; the rights of private property owners who live near cemeteries to be free from overly intrusive Federal laws; and the rights of demonstrators to have their message heard. The amendment was accepted, the bill was passed, and it is now Federal law. In addition to the bills already enacted into law, the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs have agreed on a comprehensive substitute amendment to S. 3421, which has cleared the House and awaits Senate action. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. S. 3421, the ``Veterans Benefits. Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006,'' contains provisions that would: enhance veterans' health, education, memorial affairs, and other benefit programs; improve VA's information technology infrastructure; authorize the construction of needed VA medical facilities; improve services for homeless veterans; remove the remains of a convicted double murderer from Arlington National Cemetery; and, I am proud to say, repeal an outdated and paternalistic law that limits the ability of veterans to hire an attorney to represent them during the VA claims process. While a fuller accounting of the provisions of S. 3421 can be found in the Joint Explanatory Statement language accompanying the amendment text in the Congressional Record--and I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Explanatory Statement be printed in the Record along with the text of the substitute amendment to S. 3421,--I will make a few remarks about three provisions of note that I have championed.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, currently, veterans and other claimants seeking veterans' benefits may not hire an attorney until the VA administrative proceedings have been completed--a process that often takes several years. That law flows from a Civil War era policy intended to protect veterans from unscrupulous attorneys. That policy arose at a time-- unlike today--when attending law school was not required to become a lawyer and there was no effective professional oversight of lawyers. In recent months, it has become abundantly clear that many veterans and their survivors want the option of hiring an attorney to help them navigate the increasingly complex VA system. In fact, the prohibition against veterans hiring attorneys is considered to be unfair and outdated by a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations, including veterans' organizations, veterans' advocates, judges, law professors, and bar associations. For these reasons, I am very pleased that a compromise version of legislation I authored was accepted that would allow veterans to hire attorneys after a veteran files a Notice of Disagreement with VA's initial decision on their claim. A provision of S. 3421 will enable the spouses of seriously wounded veterans to obtain educational assistance benefits sooner than they have ever been able to before. The need for the educational assistance provision was brought to my attention by U.S. Army SFC Jeff Mittman, a young man who was blinded after an attack in Iraq and is being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Sergeant First Class Mittman's wife would like to begin receiving educational assistance benefits from the VA while her husband undergoes treatment in order to improve her job opportunities once he is officially discharged from service, but is now prevented from doing so by law. If enacted, S. 3421 would remove that barrier. Finally, S. 3421 would remove the cremated remains of a convicted double murderer from Arlington National Cemetery. In the summer of 2005, we learned that the remains of a brutal murderer--Russell Wayne Wagner--were placed in the Nation's preeminent military cemetery, Arlington National Cemetery. I was appalled to discover that the law enacted in 1997 to deny capital offenders from burial in national cemeteries did not apply to Wagner. This was also quickly brought to my attention by the Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski. We joined together in that effort. The answer was it couldn't happen, it couldn't be removed because of the law. While we moved swiftly to close the loophole that permitted Wagner's burial in the first place, the question remained: Should his remains continue to be included among the scores of honored dead in Arlington? For me and Senator Mikulski, who joined me in this effort, the answer was ``no.'' That is why I am so pleased that S. 3421 would direct the Secretary of the Army to remove Wagner's remains from Arlington. As I stated last summer, we must not dishonor the sacrifices made by those memorialized at our Nation's military cemeteries by including among them individuals who, through their own heinous acts, have grievously dishonored themselves because at another time in their life they were veterans. S. 3421 is an impressive assortment of legislation. It contains the collective work of more than 44 Senators. I want to take some time to single out a few of them. Senators Burr and Obama for their work on the homeless assistance provisions of the bill; Senators Hutchison, Feinstein, Graham, Landrieu, and Murray for their work on the construction provisions; Senators Thune, Salazar, and Burr for their work on the rural health components of the bill. And lastly, the committee's ranking member, and a true friend of veterans, Senator Akaka. I ask my colleagues for their vote. And I thank every Senator on the committee and in the Senate for their support in seeing this, and all of the other veterans' bills, through the Senate. I also want to thank my House colleagues, in particular Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member Evans, and Acting Ranking Member Filner. We were able to come together in the spirit of compromise in the final hour on some key provisions, and it is a fitting way to end this Congress. As we head into a new Congress, I want to extend my best wishes to my friend, and soon-to-be chairman, Senator Akaka. It has been a pleasure working with a Senator of his quality, and I pledge that as ranking member I will strive to emulate the kindness, cooperation, and ``aloha'' that he showed me during my time as chairman of this great committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments regarding the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, or County Payments Act as it has been nicknamed. As this session comes to an end, I want to express my disappointment that this Congress did not act to reauthorize County Payments and to publicly reaffirm my commitment to finding resolution for this issue. In 2000, the Congress passed Public Law 106-393 to address the needs of the forest counties of America. It created a new cooperative partnership between citizens in forest counties and our Federal land management to develop forest health improvement projects on public lands and simultaneously stimulate job development and community economic stability. The act has been an enormous success, not just achieving but surpassing the goals of Congress. This act has restored programs for students in rural areas and prevented the closure of numerous isolated schools. It has been a primary funding mechanism to provide rural school students with educational opportunities comparable to those enjoyed by suburban and urban students. More than 4,400 rural schools receive funds because of this act. Next, the act has allowed rural county road districts and county road departments to address the severe maintenance backlog. Snow removal has been restored for citizens, tourists, and school buses. Bridges have been upgraded and replaced, and culverts that are hazardous to fish passage have been upgraded and replaced. In addition, over 70 Resource Advisory Committees, or RACs, have been formed. These RACs cover our largest 150 forest counties. Nationally, these 15-person diverse RAC stakeholder committees have studied and approved more than 2,500 projects on Federal forestlands and adjacent public and private lands. These projects have addressed a wide variety of improvements drastically needed on our national forests. Projects have included fuels reduction, habitat improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance and rehabilitation, reforestation, campground and trail improvement, and noxious week eradication. RACs are a new and powerful partnership between county governments and the land management agencies. They are rapidly building the capacity for collaborative public land management decisionmaking in over 150 of our largest forest counties in America and are reducing the gridlock over public land management, community by community. The legacy of this act over the last few years is positive and substantial. This law should be extended so it can continue to benefit the forest counties, their schools, and continue to contribute to improving the health of our national forests. I could go on and on about the merits of this act, but the truth is politics got in the way of funding any extension. Some of my colleagues proposed to fund this measure through a sweeping new 3-percent withholding on all payments made by Federal, State, and local governments. This proposal would impose significant burdens on businesses. In most cases, businesses make substantially less than a 3-percent profit on their contracts and sometimes turn no profit at all. The withholding requirement will effectively withhold entire paychecks--interest free--thereby impeding the cash flow of small businesses, eliminating funds that can be used for reinvestment in the business, and forcing companies to pass on the added costs to customers or finance the additional amount. In addition, the cost to the Federal, State, and local governments to administer and implement the new withholding requirement will be substantial. The Congressional Budget Office called the provision an unfunded mandate on State and local governments because its expected costs exceed the allowable $50 million annual threshold. In short, this proposal would hurt many of the same people we are trying to help. The administration also proposed a few ideas, one being the selling of public lands. I have always supported the exchange or sale of small parcels of public land that improve land management for wildlife habitat, recreation, and access. I oppose selling those public lands that are America's treasures such as national parks, wilderness lands, or national monuments. I also oppose selling public lands for the sole purpose of generating funds for the U.S. Treasury. All of the ideas I brought to the working group encouraged responsible resource development and further promoted the relationship of our resource dependant communities and our public lands. I have encouraged the working group to look at expediting oil and gas leases, thus generating additional revenue through increased royalty payments. Next, I asked that the working group consider streamlining NEPA for salvage logging and other timber-related projects. My hope was to build on the success of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 and reunite our communities with our public lands. Let me assure you that these ideas I have just described were only the tip of the iceberg. No stone was left unturned, and in many cases the rock was flipped several times in hopes of shaking a new idea loose. Unfortunately, none of the ideas could garner enough bipartisan support. Again, it is upsetting to me to see an issue that has built its reputation on nonpartisan success fall victim to partisan politics. If we do not work to reauthorize this act, all of the progress of the last 6 years will be lost. Schools in timber-dependant communities will lose a substantial part of their funding. These school districts will have to start making tough budget decisions such as keeping or canceling afterschool programs, sports programs, music programs, and other programs that serve the basic educational needs of our children. In addition, many school districts will have to determine if and how many staff members they can retain for the next school year. Next, counties will have to reprioritize road maintenance so that only the essential services of the county are met because that is all they will be able to afford. Since most school districts and counties operate on a fiscal year that begins July 1, many of these critical decisions have to be made sooner rather than later. I have always viewed that this act as a temporary measure to help communities transition from historical payments to the reality of today. Unfortunately, our communities have not come far enough in the last 6 short years. I want to work with my colleagues to help counties expedite their transitions and feel that the first step is to address how much funding is associated with the reauthorization. With the beginning of the next Congress, I will encourage my colleagues to recall why we are working on this reauthorization, the relationship between our public lands, schools, and counties. And I will be asking for their commitment in working in a bipartisan fashion to address this critical issue expeditiously.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that myself, the Senator from Idaho, and the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, be allowed to speak as if in morning business for the next 30 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, will be here in a few moments to join me in what we believe is an important message, to continue to speak not only to our colleagues here in the Senate but to America as a whole. It is a speech not unlike the one we gave before we recessed for the break before the election, when it was becoming increasingly obvious that America was finding itself in a major labor shortage, primarily in agriculture and some of the service industries. In fact, while I was home during this recess period of time, the shortage of orange juice in the U.S. market made national news as the price went up substantially. A shortage of orange juice today in the American market is because nearly a million cases of oranges rotted on the trees of Florida this fall, late summer, because there were not hands to pick them, put them in the crates, and move them to the processing sheds. That became painfully obvious across America as the harvest season went on, especially in those areas that require concentrated hand labor, whether it was Florida, California, and the great San Joaquin Valley of California, whether it was my State of Idaho that began to see labor shortages in a variety of areas, whether it was Washington or Oregon, where many of the fresh fruits and vegetable crops simply did not get picked and apples rotted on the trees, whether it was in Kentucky, Illinois, Colorado or Michigan, it became so obvious this Congress, in its effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform, simply failed to do so. America grew angry about it, grew angry about the number of illegals in our country and the fact this Congress did little or nothing about it. A great deal is going on. One of the reasons the labor shortages began to appear is because this Congress insisted, and the administration agreed, we put money behind the securing and the closing of our southwest border where literally a million-plus people were moving across annually into our labor market. We viewed that as untenable and irresponsible for a great nation to fail to control and secure its borders. We are doing that now. We are continuing to invest and will continue to invest in a secured border environment. But in doing that, and failing to couple with a more secure border a comprehensive immigration reform package that allows a real, honest, legal, fair guest worker program, American agriculture now hurts as they have never hurt before. On December 4, all of my colleagues received a letter that in itself was almost unprecedented, a letter from over 400 agricultural groups around the country--not just agricultural groups but nursery groups, warehouse groups, storage groups, all of them generally agriculture related. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. What did they say? They said it very clearly: a failure to reform the H-2A program has put American agriculture in an untenable position. As we bring in the numbers this winter to do the harvest this summer and fall, it is reasonable to predict the loss that the American consumers are now hearing about in bits and pieces through the national news could well be equivalent to $4 billion to $5 billion of actual value lost at the farm gate--meaning the produce did not leave the farm, it did not make it to the processor, it will never make it to the consumer's shelf, and American consumers will grow increasingly dependent upon foreign sources for their food supply. For a great nation like ours, that is not only dangerous, it is foolish and irresponsible. As we put American agriculture through this difficult time by our failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform, something else is going on out there on the farm. Diesel costs, fertilizer costs, equipment costs are at an all-time high. Of course, we know the general energy costs have increased at an unprecedented rate this year. Not only do we have the impact of high input costs in the production of American agriculture and agricultural foodstuffs, now there is nobody to pick the crop. I was in the upper San Joaquin Valley late summer meeting with a group of agricultural people. One farmer said it as clearly as it could ever be said. He said: Senator Craig, if you can't bring the workers to me or if you can't make the workers available in the valley, I will have to go where the workers are. What did he mean by that? He meant he was leasing land in Argentina or Mexico or Brazil where the labor force is today. What will happen to the land in the great San Joaquin Valley? It will go fallow, or it will be put in homes. It will no longer be profitable to produce in that greatest agricultural valley in the world which produces the vegetable crops and all of the other kinds of crops the American consumer so readily needs, knows, and wants. Last year, for the first time, by a near majority of months, America was consuming more from foreign import than they were consuming from their own production. That is something that should never happen in the greatest agricultural Nation in the world. I think Americans get it. There was a very loud group who distorted the whole debate. But they also taught us something important, that Government had fumbled and Congress had failed in its responsible approach to a comprehensive, enforceable, immigration law. We ignored it for decades. In ignoring it, great problems had occurred. Not only did we have an unprecedented number of undocumented illegal foreign nationals in our country, but we had allowed industries such as agriculture to grow increasingly dependent on an illegal workforce. Agriculture came to me in the late 1990s and said: Senator Craig, this problem has to get fixed. We began to work on it then. Last year, the Senate passed a comprehensive bill with AgJOBS, the bill I had worked on with American agriculture and the coalition of over 400 agricultural groups. That was in the bill. But when the House failed to act and would not act, when we recognized that we had to gain confidence with the American people that we knew what we were doing and we would do it right, we increasingly began to put pressure on the border, to secure it, to make it a real border, to recognize that to cross it you had to be legal, you had to have the right papers and credentials. That is going on as we speak. I was one who encouraged our President to maximize the use of our National Guard to help the Border Patrol to focus on those concentrated areas where greater movement of illegals coming across our border was occuring. It is an issue of security; it is not just people wanting to cross the border to work. Last year, over 200,000 were apprehended who were non-Mexican. They were from all over the world. Many of them, tragically enough, were drug traffickers and illegals trying to get into our country for illegal purposes--not just a hard day's work in the hot sun of an agricultural field. Border security is critical. I hope this Congress will do now what it must do, what it has to do for the American economy, for the American agricultural industries, and that is pass a responsible, comprehensive reform of the H-2A program. Yes, we need to deal with the illegals who are currently in the country, but we also need to create a legal, identifiable flow of people who come to work and then go home. Ninety-plus percent who work here want to do just that: they want to go back from where they came. That is where their families are in large part. That is where the American dollar improves their lifestyle, back in their hometowns, predominantly in Mexico but in other parts of the world as well. If we fail to pass comprehensive reform this year, American agriculture will go through another devastating year in the field, and real management choices will be made, management choices no longer to plant and grow in the United States, no longer to put fresh vegetable crops in the field in December to be harvested in February to supply our great and abundant markets and the needs of our consumers. This is a very real issue today and a very real problem. That is why on December 4 this coalition sent to this Congress an urgent message, a plea. It said: Please listen to us. Support and pass comprehensive agricultural worker reform. Give us an H-2A program that works. That is what we must accomplish because even in all of our debates this is not going to happen overnight. We won't get to this for several months, and when we do, it will take time working with the House. Then it will pass. Then it has to be implemented. So American agriculture will go through another very tough cropping season and billions of dollars will be lost. Wise business men and women will have to make decisions of whether they continue to farm in this country and produce in this country or if they go elsewhere to produce, and instead of being domestic producers, they become foreign importers. That is something that should never be allowed to happen. My colleague from California has joined me. Senator Feinstein and I and others have worked closely to craft the right kind of bill that works, that is legal, that is transparent, that recognizes the importance of border security and border control to get this great country back into the business of doing what it ought to do; that is, to allow into our country those we want and to keep out those we don't want. We are a nation of immigrants. We are proud of that. Most all of us came from somewhere else some time ago. It is because of this we are a great nation. It is because of the ability to assimilate, to bring into our culture foreign nationals to become Americans that has made our country great. In the last two decades, we failed to do that in a responsible fashion. Now, because of that, American agriculture hurts, other industries hurt. It is important we grow increasingly sensitive to getting this job done and getting it right. The job itself is passing AgJOBS, the comprehensive responsible bill to help American agriculture create a legal workforce. Under the unanimous consent the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, has the next 15 or 16 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California be allowed to proceed for at least 5 more minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for asking the question. This is not an unknown issue. We all understand it. The Congress understands it. The election is over. People can decide whether they survived or failed because of their position one way or another on immigration. The reality of what she and I talk about is so real today. We knew it then; we know it now. We have the 60 votes. We have had them for some time. There is no question in my mind, with the reforms we are talking about, this could become law and we could pass it in the Senate.

Mr. CRAIG. I have not either. Obviously, we are in the closing hours of the 109th Congress. Whether we could get it done now, but more importantly, get it done when we get back very early in the year, is going to be critical to us.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a former congressional colleague and a personal friend, Representative Helen Chenoweth-Hage. Just weeks ago, our Nation lost a true American patriot in a tragic car accident in central Nevada. On October 2, 2006, Helen Chenoweth was riding in her daughter-in-law's car, cradling her baby grandson in her arms. The car was overturned, and she and her grandson were thrown from it. Helen held her grandson so tightly that he came away with minor injuries--but she was not so lucky. I take this time to honor Representative Chenoweth and her contributions to Idaho and this Nation, as some may not be aware of how much she gave of herself. Helen was born in Topeka, KS, on January 27, 1938. She graduated from Whitworth College in Spokane, WA, and started her lifelong career of public service. She ran her own medical and management consulting firm, which led to her job as manager at the Northside Medical Center in Orofino, ID. In 1975, she was appointed as the first woman to serve as the state executive director of the Idaho Republican Party. Soon after, she became the chief of staff and then campaign manager for long-time friend, First District Congressman Steve Symms. A close friend described the Chenoweth-Symms team as a ``fun and inspiring team to work with.'' After establishing herself in Idaho as a trusted leader, she won the Republican nomination to Idaho's First Congressional District in 1994. A strong advocate for term limits, she pledged to serve no more than three terms, if elected. Helen Chenoweth won the 1994 November election, beating the Democratic incumbent by nearly 11 percent. She was known as one of the ``true believers'' in the 1995 Republican freshman class and was one of the most conservative. She even made conservative grammatical choices, insisting on being called ``Congressman Chenoweth,'' instead of Congresswoman. Helen easily won reelection two more times and was asked by many to run for a fourth term, but having pledged to serve three terms, she was true to her word and retired in 2000. Idaho Govenor Jim Risch is quoted as saying, ``When the six years were up, she could have easily been reelected, she could have easily carried on, but she said `no, I made that promise and I'm going to stick with that promise.' '' I was always impressed by her unwavering ideological positions, even if sometimes they were unpopular. I learned that she was driven by a clearly defined and articulated philosophy that allowed her to stand strong in the middle of a storm of criticism and persist in forcing changes for the betterment of Idaho and the Nation. She was a strong advocate for the American people and a true believer in the balance of powers. During the Balkan crisis in the 1990s, she argued for the involvement of the legislative branch, writing, ``Congress played no role in defining those political aims, which means that the American people--in whose name Congress is empowered to act-- were not permitted to play any role in the decision to commit our Nation to war.'' She was known for quoting the Founders when giving her arguments, pulling her colleagues back to our Nation's constitutional roots if they were veering in another direction. On this same issue she quoted Alexander Hamilton writing, ``It is the province and duty of the Executive to preserve to the Nation the blessings of peace. The Legislature alone can interrupt those blessings, by placing the Nation in a state of War.'' Helen Chenoweth was a champion for property rights and constitutional government. She fought hard for the rights of property owners and against the heavy hand of Federal regulation and taxation that affected family farms, ranches, and businesses. In Idaho she was known as a ``true environmentalist'' who worked to preserve Idaho's natural beauty while also balancing the rights and needs of humans. Her passion and hard work demonstrated her belief in the inalienable rights of all citizens, and she fought to keep them protected by the U.S. Constitution. On September 21, 2000, she was awarded the first ``Friend of American Freedom Award'' by the National Center For Public Policy Research and the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow. The award honored Congressman Chenoweth's ``distinguished record of defending the United States against environmental treaties, United Nations programs and other global policies that pose a threat to the Nation's sovereignty.'' Particular appreciation was given for her work on the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, which would require the executive branch to seek Congressional approval before designating any U.S. landmark as a world heritage site. The director of the National Center's Environmental Policy Task Force said of Helen, ``Congressman Chenoweth- Hage has been one of the leading champions of U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution during her 6-year tenure in Congress. The `Friend of American Freedom Award' represents our profound thanks to the Congressman for her valiant work defending constitutional liberties.'' While I served as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, she served as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. I enjoyed this opportunity to work together on land management issues such as the Roadless Initiative. We shared a passion to protect our great western lands. Much of her work survives in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Helen was a strong advocate for women and families. She supported funding for women's health and also for family health care. Many women looked up to her as a woman politician who earned every bit of respect she received and held her ground in an environment predominately of men. She was known as a true feminist who never asked for special treatment because of her gender. Even after her retirement from Congress she worked tirelessly with her husband, Nevada rancher Wayne Hage, in the lawsuit Hage vs. U.S. Wayne had purchased his ranch in 1978 and testified that over the years Federal agency interference made it nearly impossible to run a livestock operation and ultimately resulted in the taking of his ranch. Wayne and Helen's court victory was a triumph for all private property owners. Helen Chenoweth-Hage was not only a great politician; she was also a loving wife and mother and a loyal friend. Her strong Christian faith inspired many, guided her throughout her life, and served as a base on which she built her philosophy. Among her many endearing qualities were her unfailing graciousness, charm, and her warm smile. She will be sorely missed, not only by her children and other family members, but by legions of friends, colleagues, and admirers. Let me end by quoting her daughter Meg Keenan, who spoke for many of us when she said: ``Helen was the most amazing, gracious person I ever had the privilege to know. She was fearless in life, and I know she welcomes the opportunity to be in the presence of God the Father.''

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation that the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, and I are introducing today. This 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 September 2006, almost 2,300 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. The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the TSGLI benefit this past September. 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 introducing today, along with Senate 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 the Department of Veterans Affairs suggest that approximately 700 individuals would be covered under this bill. 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 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I support the Smith and Burns amendments and take just a few minutes to address both issues which are truly an emergency. First, Mr. Smith has filed an amendment to extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act for 1 year. Without a one year extension, the 780 counties that benefit from the Act will face difficult funding decisions regarding the next school year. This act expired September 30th of this year and the last payment is in the process of being made. Without this funding, school districts will have to decide what programs should be cut in order to make ends meet. For many districts this will include the decision of which schools to keep open and which schools to close. We are about to experience an emergency in our schools if funding is not addressed. The act has been an enormous success in achieving and even surpassing the goals of Congress. This act has restored programs for students in rural schools and prevented the closure of numerous isolated rural schools. It has been a primary funding mechanism to provide rural school students with educational opportunities comparable to suburban and urban students. Over 4,400 rural schools receive funds because of this act. Next, the act has allowed rural county road districts and county road departments to address the severe maintenance backlog. Snow removal has been restored for citizens, tourists, and school buses. Bridges have been upgraded and replaced and culverts that are hazardous to fish passage have been upgraded and replaced. The legacy of this act over the last few years is positive and substantial. This law should be extended so it can continue to benefit the forest counties, their schools, and continue to contribute to improving the health of our national forests. If we do not work to reauthorize this act, all of the progress of the last years will be lost. Schools in timber dependant communities will lose a substantial part of their funding. These school districts will have to start making tough budget decisions such as keeping or canceling after school programs, sports programs, music programs, and trying to determine what is the basic educational needs of our children. Next, counties will have to reprioritize road maintenance so that only the essential services of the county are met because that is all they will be able to afford. Thirty of our colleagues, have joined Senator Wyden and me in recognizing the importance of the reauthorization of this Act by cosponsoring S. 267. Next, Mr. Burns' has filed an amendment addressing wildfire suppression funding. As we all know, this has been an extraordinary year with 89,524 fires on 9.5 million acres of land across the country to date. Indeed, this has been the worst fire season on record in terms of acres burned. By way of comparison, the 10-year average projection for fiscal year 2006 was 60,726 fires on 4.9 million acres, or about half of what is likely to burn for this year. Due to the severity of this year's fire season, the Forest Service and Department of the Interior, DOI, will exhaust their appropriated funds for wildfire suppression before the end of this fiscal year which will force them to borrow from nonfire program accounts. Additional funds are needed to repay these borrowed funds or these agencies will face serious disruptions to critical programs. When borrowing from non- fire program accounts occurs, it causes numerous project delays and cancellations, strained relationships with state and local agency partners, and disruptions in essential program management efforts. Frequently, these cancellations and delays increase costs and the time needed to complete the projects. Again, we need to address this emergency before it causes significant havoc for our public lands.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to seek recognition to speak about something that is very important to Congress and the American people, and that is the issue of the state of veterans affairs in this country. The Senate on Wednesday heard from the Senator from Washington an episode so designed and delivered by her that would suggest that this Congress has ignored and done little to help America's veterans, both current and in the sense of Afghanistan and Iraq, those future veterans. I simply do not agree and take issue with her characterization of the record of the Bush administration and this Republican-led Congress when it comes to caring for America's veterans. In my capacity as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I take issue with her suggestion that Congress has done nothing in its job to demand accountability out of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I must suggest it is not surprising that a month removed from a midterm election our Democratic colleagues are leveling accusations against a Republican-led Congress that it has failed to hold the Bush administration accountable for a host of issues. Let's remember, it is a political season and the statements made on the floor Wednesday about veterans and veterans affairs is very politically charged. I have no trouble with tough oversight and accountability and finding answers to serious problems, but to consistently suggest that the sky is falling while leaving out any whiff of praise or any good that has been accomplished is very political at best and it is a disservice to our veterans and the thousands of dedicated VA employees who care for them. The speech of the Senator from Washington regarding VA provides a very clear example of what I mean. During her speech, the Senator from Washington highlighted a recently released GAO report that confirmed the problems VA encountered in its formulation and execution of its budgets in fiscal years 20005 and 2006 that ultimately led to the Bush administration--that is right, this administration--and this Congress asking for a supplemental funding of $3 billion. From that report, she drew her own conclusions--in my view unsubstantiated conclusions--that the VA had misled and even lied to Congress about the veracity of its budget requests. Then she demanded accountability, as if it were nonexistent. I am here to tell my colleagues of the steps that have been taken to establish that accountability that is there and very clear today. As soon as we learned of last year's budget shortfall, I called hearings and we got answers. The answers all of us received from the VA at that hearing and then in subsequent oversight hearings were what the GAO reported--that they were following much of what was being done to establish greater credibility. More importantly, what the Senator from Washington left out of her rendition of the GAO's report was that VA had already implemented nearly all of the GAO's recommendations prior to submission of its fiscal year 2007 budget in February. Solutions to a problem were identified and implemented long ago, and that is why our VA is functioning as well as it is today. Also, based upon when we learned during our oversight hearings, we required VA to submit quarterly reports on budget execution. We have received three such reports this year. VA officials made themselves available to Members, to the staff, Republicans and Democrats alike. We have historically operated the Veterans' Affairs Committee in a very bipartisan way, and it is beyond the pale that it appears we are now into partisan attacks just prior to the election. Furthermore, for anyone interested in learning the facts about how VA is holding itself accountable for performance, you need to look at the record. Just open up the VA's budget documents and you will see a host of performance measures that show a degree of institutional accountability that is the envy of other Government agencies and roundly praised by independent observers. Let me tick off a few of those performance measures, and as I am doing so, please be mindful of how the improvements in these areas during the Bush years have impacted the lives of veterans. The percentage of patients who report being seen within 20 minutes of scheduled appointments by the VA care facilities has improved from 65 percent in 2002 to 73 percent through the end of last year. The percentage of primary care appointments scheduled within 30 days of the desired date has improved from 89 percent in 2002 to 96 percent through the end of last year. The percentage of specialty care appointments scheduled within 30 days of the desired date have improved from 86 percent in 2002 to 93 percent this year. The number of veterans the VA treats in noninstitutional, long-term care settings has increased by 50 percent since 2002. And the list goes on and on and on. In 2004, the Rand Corporation examined why VA patients get better chronic preventative care than similar U.S. audits. The answer? Rand concluded that the VA's edge is linked to improved information technology, tracking of performance, and accountability. And that is when in these charts this kind of recognition began to take over. All of this was ignored in the speech by the Senator from Washington. So let's look at some of those facts. Washington Monthly is not necessarily a publication that constantly praises the Bush administration, but it says VA care is the ``best care anywhere''--a tremendous statement and a very fine article about the phenomenal increases in quality health care delivered by the Veterans' Administration over the last number of years. That is not the end of that story. Here is another part of that story, and this comes from not a Washington publication but from Time magazine. It goes on to say in this article how VA hospitals have become the best in the Nation. It says that for the sixth year in a row--let's backtrack to the Bush administration. I think they have been around a few years, maybe 6 or more. VA hospitals last year scored higher than private facilities on the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index. The VA scored 83 out of 100. Private institutions scored 71 out of 100. That is a pretty good record. In fact, it is the best record in the United States. Now, what did BusinessWeek magazine say about it? They said something very similar. They said that 154 hospitals and 871 clinics run by the Veterans' Administration have been ranked best in class by a number of independent groups on a broad range of measures from chronic care to heart disease treatment, and on and on. The VA's prescription for accuracy rates is greater than 99.97 percent. That is the rest of the story, and it is a mighty important story. Now, let me talk just a few minutes about money because I think that is part of why we are as successful as we are, but it is also a phenomenal statement of this Congress--yes, a Republican-led Congress-- and this administration's commitment to America's veterans. What are those accomplishments during the Bush years? Let me list a few. With enactment of the 2007 budget, VA's health care budget will have increased 70 percent during the Bush years. Look at the numbers. Here they are. Those are undeniable. Those, in fact, are facts. They are budgetary facts. It is one of the fastest growth rates and increases in budget in any other area except defense in a time of war in this period of budgeting of the U.S. Government. Has a Republican-led Congress turned its back on American veterans? Quite the opposite. The GI bill educational benefits for veterans has been boosted by 65 percent, raising the lifetime benefit from $23,400 to $38,700. A new educational program was created for members of the Guard and Reserve activated after September 11, 2001, providing up to $39,960 in lifetime benefits. The educational benefit for survivor and dependents of vets has been increased by 46 percent. The maximum VA home loan guarantee has been increased by 107 percent. The largest expansion of the National Cemetery System since the Civil War is currently underway. Historic legislation was enacted to permit certain disabled veterans to receive their disability and military retirement benefits concurrently. Comprehensive legislation was enacted to update and strengthen civilian protection available to members of the Armed Forces. Comprehensive legislation was enacted to improve job training and placement services for veterans. A new insurance program was created to provide immediate benefits-- payments of between $25,000 to $100,000 to servicemembers who have been traumatically injured since the beginning of the war on terror. Mr. President, 2,700 injured veterans have received that benefit. That is the record. That is the record, and that is the one this Congress and this President have responded to in a most timely and, more importantly, responsible fashion. Now that I think the record is clear, what are some of the other answers? Well, some on the other side would say it is money, money, money, and more money. We have found it is quite the opposite. It is making the system we have work more efficiently, more responsibly. We are now reshaping VA to handle the high-tech problems it has had, or the informational problems it has had, to make sure we secure the names and the lists and the informational flow of our veterans and their backgrounds. I am extremely proud of the work we have done, and we have done it in a bipartisan way. So why now, in the late hours of this year, are we all of a sudden hearing all of these things that are what I believe to be improper statements about the Veterans' Administration? Well, I think we have to recognize what is at hand. It is a political year. But there is something we have never done; that is, politicize veterans or politicize our military. And we shouldn't start now. Our record is strong. Our support of veterans has always been there. I have given my colleagues the facts and the numbers. I am proud of the accomplishments we have made this year alone, a near 14 percent increase in veterans health care or veterans budgets in general. There is no other agency of our Government except Defense that has had that kind of an increase. So let's recognize what the year is all about. It is politics and it is political. What I have given my colleagues is a factual accounting of the great successes we have had in veterans affairs, with veterans, delivering service to veterans. That doesn't mean we are perfect and it doesn't mean every veteran got exactly what they wanted the moment they asked for it. That will never exist. But we will be responsive. We do care. And the expression on the part of this Congress, this President, and the American taxpayer in relation to the support of our veterans is, in fact, unprecedented. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield back the Republican time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments regarding the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, or County Payments Act as it has been nicknamed. Today is a sad day for the 780 counties that benefit from the County Payment Act because with the last day of this fiscal year, the act expires. In 2000, the Congress passed Public Law 106-393 to address the needs of the forest counties of America and to focus on creating a new cooperative partnership between citizens in forest counties and our Federal land management to develop forest health improvement projects on public lands and simultaneously stimulate job development and community economic stability. The act has been an enormous success in achieving and even surpassing the goals of Congress. This act has restored programs for students in rural schools and prevented the closure of numerous isolated rural schools. It has been a primary funding mechanism to provide rural school students with educational opportunities comparable to suburban and urban students. Over 4,400 rural schools receive funds because of this act. Next, the act has allowed rural county road districts and county road departments to address the severe maintenance backlog. Snow removal has been restored for citizens, tourists, and school buses. Bridges have been upgraded and replaced and culverts that are hazardous to fish passage have been upgraded and replaced. In addition, over 70 Resource Advisory Committees, or RACs have been formed. These RACs cover our largest 150 forest counties. Nationally these l5-person diverse RAC stakeholder committees have studied and approved over 2,500 projects on Federal forestlands and adjacent public and private lands. These projects have addressed a wide variety of improvements drastically needed on our national forests. Projects have included fuels reduction, habitat improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance and rehabilitation, reforestation, campground and trail improvement, and noxious weed eradication. RACs are a new and powerful partnership between county governments and the land management agencies. They are rapidly building the capacity for collaborative public land management decisionmaking in over 150 of our largest forest counties in America and are reducing the gridlock over public land management, community by community. The legacy of this act over the last few years is positive and substantial. This law should be extended so it can continue to benefit the forest counties, their schools, and continue to contribute to improving the health of our national forests. If we do not work to reauthorize this act, all of the progress of the last 6 years will be lost. Schools in timber-dependent communities will lose a substantial part of their funding. These school districts will have to start making tough budget decisions such as keeping or canceling after school programs, sports programs, music programs, and trying to determine what is the basic educational needs of our children. Next, counties will have to reprioritize road maintenance so that only the essential services of the county are met because that is all they will be able to afford. Thirty of our colleagues have joined Mr. Wyden and myself in recognizing the importance of the reauthorization of this act by cosponsoring S. 267. And while we have run out of time in this fiscal year, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the lameduck session to address this issue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator asking the question. I began to work with American agriculture and specifically western growers in the Pacific Northwest and in the Senator's State of California starting in about 1999 when they came to me and recognized, as they now clearly know, that they were beginning to rely on an illegal workforce of undocumented workers who were coming in because the law that exists, the H-2A, was so complicated and so bureaucratic, it was simply failing them. So it has been now at least 7 years that we have worked to comprise and build the AgJOBS legislation.

Mr. CRAIG. There is a growing crisis in the State of Idaho. I would like, if the Senator from California doesn't mind, to submit for the Record a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that the Senator from California and I sent out late this month. It speaks of California and Idaho and Washington and Oregon. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, clearly what is happening--and the Senator has said it so well--is this a failure of American agriculture or is this a failure of Congress? It is clearly a failure of Congress and the Government. We have known our borders are porous for a long time, and we are closing them now, and we should close them. There is nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, for national security and to build an orderly process in immigration, it is critical that we do close them or control them. But we also knew that immediately attached to it had to be the creation of a legal guest worker program. That is where Congress is failing. We believe and in the letter we submitted the losses by the end of the harvest season could go anywhere from $1 billion--and they are well beyond that now--to $5 billion or $6 billion at farm gate, meaning as it leaves the farm, which means to the consumer in the supermarkets of America, it will be a much higher price to pay. I thank the Senator for asking the question.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief because I have already spoken on the issue with Senator Feinstein of California earlier before the noon hour. I did want to come back and conclude my concerns. My original cosponsor, Senator Kennedy, is in the Chamber. He and I worked collectively on the issue of a guest worker program for this country that would create a legality, a transparency, and a reasonableness to the management of it in a reformed H-2A worker program that he and I worked on and shaped and which became known as AgJOBS, along with how we dealt with the issue of those in the country today who are illegal and who remain a critical part of the American workforce, and especially with agriculture, an industry that has become increasingly dependent upon migrant workers, guest workers and, in this instance, tragically enough, illegal workers. Let me cite a couple of examples because I, like Senator Feinstein and others, Senator Boxer; the State of California, the State of Idaho, the State of Oregon, the State of Washington; in fact, the State of the Nation where agriculture exists today--the Presiding Officer, Senator Martinez, has just gone through a situation in the State of Florida where literally millions and millions of dollars' worth of oranges have rotted simply because they couldn't find the hands to pick them to put them through the process of packing and distribution. America's agriculture is dependent on hand labor. When we think of agriculture in the Midwest, we think of large machines doing all the work. It is simply not true. In the fruits and vegetables and nuts areas and many of the varieties of fruits we find abundant upon the supermarket shelves of America, we are dependent on hand labor, and that hand labor over the last many decades has become predominantly foreign labor and, tragically enough, it has become illegal foreign labor. But because of a failure of government--and it is important I say this: It is not American agriculture's fault. It is a failure of government to appropriately and necessarily police our borders and devise and cause to work a reasonable, flexible, transparent guest worker program that brings us to the crisis American agriculture is beginning to experience as we speak. The Senator from California spoke earlier of the literally billions of dollars' worth of crops that are going to be left in the fields of the greater San Joaquin Valley of California this year because there is no one to pick them. I am always frustrated when it happens in my State that some of my citizens say: Larry, we have all these people on welfare. Get them out and get them to work. Well, we reformed the welfare program dramatically, and literally millions of people who were once on welfare are working. We are at full employment in our country today. That means those who can and will are working. In my State of Idaho, we are almost beyond full employment. Finally, finally, after fairly heavy criticism for what I was doing to lead an area of immigration reform that was critical to my State, and much of that criticism came from my State, now Idaho agriculture is beginning to step up and say: My goodness, where are these workers we have grown to depend on? We believe we are 18 to 20 percent underemployed in the State of Idaho. That means our packing sheds this fall and some of our produce, our fruits, and our vegetables have not and will not get harvested. Our potato industry is beginning to feel the impact of fewer people there to help them, and as a result their timely harvest and their timely packing simply will not occur. So whether it is Idaho or California or Florida or anywhere else in the Nation, American agriculture exists. Whether it is with the nursery industry or the landscaping industry, they too are now experiencing the great difficulty of this country doing what it should have done a long time ago; that is, control its borders. The shortages today are a result of our southern border beginning to close. We have made a commitment to the American people that we will secure that border. Part of the debate which will occur this afternoon when we get back on the fence bill will be that kind of debate: how we can further secure our borders. But if you only secure your borders and you do not create a legal and transparent program by which foreign nationals can enter our country to enter our workforce legally, then we will create an economic schism in this country that is, without question, real. It is showing up in agriculture today because agriculture has historically been a threshold economy for a foreign worker. They come here, they work in agriculture for a couple years, they move out, and they move on to the service industry, the construction industry, the homebuilding industry. In part, with our borders now tightening and the nearly $2 billion a year we are spending on that security and that increasing security, they have moved out of agriculture and there is no one to move in. Also, the displacement occurred after Katrina when many of that level of worker left the fields of agriculture and went south into Mississippi and Louisiana to help with the cleanup down there. In fact, many Mississippians and Louisianans will tell you that if it hadn't been for migrant workers and, in this instance, illegal workers, we wouldn't be as far along with the cleanup and the beginning of the rehabilitation of what has gone on in the tragic area affected by Katrina. Mr. President, when we proceed to the fence bill, I am going to attempt to bring up AgJOBS. I am going to ask unanimous consent that the Senate allow us to do that. I don't know that it will happen. It probably won't. But I think it is important for America and agriculture to see we are trying. Because one of the quotes I handed in earlier when I asked unanimous consent for some material to go into the Record, along with the letter Senator Feinstein and I sent out to our colleagues, was, I thought, a necessary and appropriate headline from an article that talks about the impact of what is going on across agricultural America. It says: ``Pickers are Few, and Growers Blame Congress.'' And the growers ought to blame Congress. They ought to blame a government that has been dysfunctional in the area of immigration for decades. That is why I began to work on this issue back in 1999 when American agriculture came to me and said: Senator, we have a problem, and we know it is a problem. We don't like it. We want to be legal. We want our workers to be legal, and we want to treat them justly. But the workers, by their effort to get here, are being treated unjustly. We know they are not legal, and yet we are nearly wholly dependent upon them. I had hopes that we could keep the cart and the horse connected appropriately. There is now a very real disconnect occurring--a disconnect between the security of the border, which is critical and necessary, and a legal process by which those workers can move through that secured border to the farms and fields of American agriculture. I don't know what it is going to end up like at the end of the harvest season across America, but my guess is--and it is now being predicted-- we could lose $4 billion or $5 billion or $6 billion at the farm gate, and of course there is the multiplier then beyond the farm gate to the processing, to the distribution, and to the supermarket. We all know what happens when it gets to the supermarket and there is less of it: the American consumer is going to pay double the price for that produce that simply was left in the fields to rot. Now, that is what is going on now. When we get back in November, we will have accurate figures--this Congress isn't going to deal with it-- and we will know whether it was $3 billion or $4 billion or $5 billion or $6 billion, and shame on us, because the Senator from California is right. We could deal with it today. The bill has been well heard. The bill has been appropriately vetted. It has been around a long time. It has been accepted by 60 Members of this body. But we are now politically bound up until after the American people speak in the election, and then we will find out how much further we can move on this issue. So we will know in November about the harvest of September and October. What about the winter months? What about the farmer who is now going to go out into the field in January to plant for a February or March fresh vegetable crop across Florida, parts of the South, certainly Arizona, the Imperial Valley of California, where last year we left over $1 billion of fresh green vegetables in the field? I will tell my colleagues what the farmers are telling me, and it is a tragedy if it happens, but it probably is going to happen. Senator, they say, if we can't plant that fresh vegetable crop that requires hand labor, we will plant winter grain. We will simply go to the fields and plant a crop of phenomenally less value to the American agricultural market, in the intensive sense, because we know it isn't going to require hand labor. One farmer told me: If I can't have the labor come to me, I will go where the labor is. So he is moving his operations out of California. He is headed to Brazil. He is headed to Argentina. There goes that economy, there go those jobs, because this Congress could not understand and function in an appropriate fashion. So be it. That is the tragedy of it. I had hoped we could think differently. We need a legal workforce. We need a reformed H-2A program. We need a guest worker program. We worked out those differences amongst ourselves. Some have agreed, some have not agreed, but we have attempted to resolve the problem.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in closing, I am going to give the Senate one more opportunity to say no because it is important that the Record show where we are because history and this month will dictate where we need to go in November. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for the transaction of morning business be extended until 3:30 p.m. today, with time equally divided in the usual form, and the order of speakers remain in place.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like the same insertion, following the Senator from Georgia, in the appropriate order, for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in my capacity as a Senator and chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I rise this evening to pay tribute to two men who were bookends of what has been termed the ``greatest generation,'' those Americans who served in World War II. One stood behind the lens and took that famous photo on Iwo Jima that became the iconic picture of the war in the Pacific. The other gave up his life in front of the lens and laid his life on the line in the cause for freedom in Europe. I speak, of course, of the photographer Joe Rosenthal and the famed actor Glenn Ford. Both men died a few weeks ago, and it is fitting that this body, the Senate of the United States, recognize these great men for their contributions. Most Americans instantly know that image Joe Rosenthal captured: the photo of five marines and one Navy corpsman raising the flag--the American flag--over Iwo Jima. That image became the basis for the Iwo Jima Memorial which rises above Arlington National Cemetery and a copy of which greets those who enter Quantico Marine Base in Virginia. That image was also made into a postage stamp, not once but twice, and inspired the creation of at least two major pictures: ``The Sands of Iwo Jima'' starring John Wayne and the new movie, ``The Flags of Our Fathers,'' produced by Clint Eastwood, which will debut in a few weeks. It has been said that Joe Rosenthal's famous photograph not only gave Americans back home an image of what was happening on the front lines, it persuasively argued that America was winning that war. The impact of that image cannot be overstated. In fact, former President George Herbert Walker Bush, who served as a Navy pilot during World War II, recently recalled seeing the flag-raising photo in the newspaper during the war with Japan and said that without Joe Rosenthal's picture, the war might have dragged on even longer: I wonder if Joe fully appreciated what this photograph meant, and what it still means to the American people. That is what the elder President Bush wrote. The President's comments were shared recently at a public presentation in which Joe Rosenthal was posthumously awarded a Navy medal for distinguished public service. It was an honor long overdue but one I am proud has finally been awarded. But while many know the story of Joe Rosenthal's famous photograph, few Americans, however, really know the real life story of the famous actor Glenn Ford. Glenn Ford was born in Canada. He emigrated to the United States when he was 5 years old. He was a descendent of U.S. President Martin Van Buren. But Glenn Ford made his own way in his life. He went on to become a Hollywood movie star who appeared in over 100 movies and television shows. But his heroic real-life military actions are worthy of a film all its own. Before the beginning of World War II, Glenn Ford served in the Coast Guard Auxiliary. In 1942, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. In the aftermath of the war in Europe, Glenn Ford came upon a displaced persons camp several miles outside of Munich, Germany. An estimated 12,000 to 15,000 homeless Jews were living at the Fernwald camp, which appeared to have been overlooked in the postwar confusion. According to the Simon Wisenthal Center, which in 1985 presented Glenn Ford with the Liberator's Award: The survivors were astonished and wept with gratitude to see an American who really cared, and for seven weeks Ford brought food, books and medical supplies. The supply sergeants looked the other way as Ford loaded up his jeep day after day, and headed up to Fernwald. Ford alone was responsible for giving hope and life to approximately half of these 12,000 to 15,000 inmates in an over 7-week period. Many women named their newborn sons after him in recognition and in gratitude. Committed to service in the Armed Forces, Glenn Ford also served a tour of duty in Vietnam in the Mekong Delta during Operation Deckhouse V and twice came under fire--intense enemy fire--and narrowly escaped death from a sniper's bullet, a bullet which wounded the attache standing next to him. Among his numerous medals and accommodations are the Medal of Honor presented by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Medaille de la France Libre for the liberation of France, two commendation medals from the U.S. Navy, and the Vietnamese Legion of Merit. He received the rank of captain with the U.S. Naval Reserves in 1968. Today, as we battle terrorists wherever they are, I think we should all reflect on the words of Glenn Ford penned in 1980. Here is what that honored and decorated movie star said: I'm proud to be an American. Let me say again. I'm proud to be an American. And I believe it's time for every one of us to stand up and show our support for our great country. There are faults and occasional inequities in America. But the proof of how good things really are here is the lines at our borders and at our consulates all over the world of people wanting to come here to live. He went on to say: In the last 200 years, we have built a wonderful dream that other countries can only hope to achieve. So let us not hurt that dream by our own selfishness. If we think only of ourselves and do nothing but complain about this magnificent country--instead of supporting her--we will lose everything our forefathers fought for. We must all pull together and elect good officials. And we must save energy and help our neighbors--especially the young of America--understand the real meaning of the free enterprise system. But let's never forget that to remain free we must always be strong. That is an important lesson I-- Meaning Glenn Ford-- learned in my navy career in World War II. National defense must be the top priority for any country. If you are not strong, you are not safe. Now is the time for every American to be proud. This is the land of the free and the home of the brave. But only as long as we are brave. If we are not brave, we will not be free. So penned by the actor Glenn Ford. As I said at the beginning of my comments this evening, Joe Rosenthal and Glenn Ford were bookends of World War II. Joe Rosenthal was behind the lens and took that seminal picture of the war in the Pacific, the Iwo Jima flag-raising, while Glenn Ford, who had spent his time in front of the lens in motion pictures and in business, left the limelight to become a true war hero and devote his time to save a Nation and to save a world. Glenn Ford and Joe Rosenthal were true patriots. Now those heroes are gone, like so many other veterans of that great war. The Nation is losing many of its World War II veterans. Believe it or not, nearly 1,000 members of the Greatest Generation pass away each day of each week. But while they are leaving us at a sad and very steady pace, their legacy of freedom and bravery, I hope, will live on forever. Let's think tonight of Joe Rosenthal and the late actor Glenn Ford. I yield the floor.