Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I will be very brief. This is very important for all of us to listen to. Just because gas prices are falling at this moment, we should not walk away from an opportunity to continue to build reserves and known reserves in the gulf and other areas, for the U.S. Geological Survey says it is phenomenally plentiful. The well Senator Landrieu just talked about at the 28,000-foot level has contributed mightily to an unbelievable drop in gas prices over the last month and a half, coupled with the lack of storms. Yes, other things are going on. But the reality is that the American producer now knows less of their potential is not at risk because it is under the control of the United States. It has taken that $20 risk figure off the top of a barrel of oil, dropping it into the low sixties range or high fifties range. That is what is reducing the price at the pump. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her continued effort. I hope this Senate and the House will recognize the potential of building U.S. domestic reserves that are safe, out of harm's way, out of the way of the political, fragile nature of other countries of the world. I thank the Senator for her steadfastness. I and others will help her with this goal.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield back the 10 minutes to the majority.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is the following order within the unanimous consent that deals with this legislation?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we immediately consider Senate amendment No. 5022, known as AgJOBS, offered by myself, Senator Feinstein of California, and 53 cosponsors. The amendment is at the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we recognize the need for a fence. We recognize the need for border security. But as we speak, American agriculture is losing somewhere between $1 billion and $5 billion at the farm gate because our southern border is closing. We have troops at the border. We are investing now nearly $2 billion a year at the border. This Congress, this Government, wants to prove, as we must, to the American people that we mean it when we say we are going to secure our southern border. But I have said for 2 years that, in doing that, we had to tie the cart and the horse together; that is, we needed to provide for the American economy a legal guestworker program. We have not done that. We are not doing that. In my State of Idaho now, there is an 18 to 20 percent reduction in the employment base in agriculture as we speak. In the State of Kentucky, the tobacco growers cooperative is now losing their tobacco crop because they have nobody to pick. In Illinois, in the orchards at this time, apples are rotting on the trees. In Florida, it is estimated that we have already lost nearly a billion dollars worth of oranges. Is this the fault of American agriculture or is this the fault of a Congress that would not take an obsolete and functional law and fix it, so that we could have a legal workforce, one that comes and works and goes fast. That is what a guestworker program is all about. In Oregon, an apple orchard picking 25 tons a day is now picking 6 tons a day, and the apples are rotting. The Senators from California, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, talked about the produce in the great San Juaquin Valley that rots as we speak. Some will say those farmers should have known better. Maybe they should have. That is why they came to me several years ago and said: We have a problem; help us fix it; help us get a legal workforce. We did not do that. We tried mightily--some of us--but we are now refusing to do that at a time of crisis. So if it is not us to blame, who is it? So let the consumer go to the fresh produce shelf this fall and winter and pay double the price for some of the products. Also, see some of our production move offshore to Argentina and Brazil, because it will go where the workforce is if the workforce cannot come to it. None of us want an illegal system. We must have a legal system. We will return in November, and we will be able to add up the losses, and that will be a tragedy. I hope that in November, with those losses calculated--and I hope I am wrong; I hope it is not $5 billion or $6 billion or $7 billion. But if it is, Senators, roll up your sleeves; we have a problem to solve, and it is a very big problem. We cannot afford to lose the fruit and vegetable industry of this country. For the sake of America, for the sake of American agriculture, it is a labor-intense industry of the kind that requires a viable legal guestworker program. Tonight, in a moment of crisis--and we now know it--the Senate of the United States has refused to deal with the problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me first express my appreciation for the hard work of the conferees in approving the legislation we will vote on shortly that contains an important provision addressing the security of our Nation's chemical infrastructure. I believe it is very important that our chemical infrastructure have safeguards for the use and storage of chemical manufacturing and distribution. There is no doubt that it is vital to our efforts to ensure national security and the safety of the public. However, we should remind ourselves that many in the regulated community have already taken proactive actions, especially since September 11, 2001, to address threats to their facilities and operations, and have adopted a number of safeguards. It is my hope that Congress in its oversight role, and the Department of Homeland Security in its administrative and regulatory role, takes those efforts into account and ensures that any new protections and regulations are workable and appropriate. I am concerned that while the intent of the chemical security ``compromise'' in this conference report is to address security concerns associated with high-risk industrial chemical use, the bill may also affect many low-risk facilities at a disproportionate level. One of those low-risk industries that will certainly be affected is our domestic dairy industry. My State of Idaho is a leader in milk production and processing, and our dairy industry is a major economic force. The industry employs the latest technologies to provide high quality products to our consumers and trading partners. What most people do not know is that dairy farmers, dairy cooperatives, and milk processors use anhydrous ammonia as a cooling agent to safely store milk and milk products as it makes its way from farm to grocery store shelf. Many in the food industry consider anhydrous ammonia to be one of the most efficient refrigerants available and in a relatively low-risk process. In accordance with Government regulations and guidelines, many dairy facilities now use anhydrous ammonia refrigeration systems after phasing out other chemicals that are less environmentally friendly. The dairy industry in Idaho and nationwide has been extremely diligent in taking actions to enhance the safety and security of their facilities. Those actions include regularly working with the Department of Homeland Security under Presidential Directives 7 and 9 along with regularly conducted vulnerability assessments with the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, and State and local officials. Food facilities were some of the first industries we focused on in our fight against terrorism. This sector of our economy is currently regulated under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 under the jurisdiction of the FDA. The anhydrous ammonia in the refrigeration systems at these facilities is already regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, under its Risk Management Program, RMP, regulations and by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, under its Process Safety Management, PSM, regulations. I believe, that the intent of including language in this conference report to strengthen the safety of our chemical production infrastructure was to focus on high-risk chemical plants. However, the language in the bill could impose serious burdens on what would normally be considered low-risk operations like dairy farms, cooperatives, and milk processors. Clearly, there is substantial interest in ensuring the security of our Nation's chemical infrastructure while not forcing onerous and duplicative regulations on one of our most important food industries. I hope some common sense will prevail on this issue, and I plan to continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the administration to see that happen.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on September 30, will once again observe National Public Lands Day. For the 13th straight year, thousands of citizens across the country help clean up public parks, rivers, lakes, forests, rangelands, and beaches. These volunteers will hit the ground running and spruce up trails, build bridges, plant trees, and much more. I commend each and everyone of them for their important public service. Their work inspires us to step back and consider just what our public lands mean to us. Almost 100 years ago, the great conservationist President Teddy Roosevelt addressed a special session of Congress on the subject of our natural resources and spoke words that should be listened to carefully by everyone who has an interest in keeping the United States the most prosperous and dynamic nation on the face of the Earth. ``These resources, which form the common basis of our welfare, can be wisely developed, rightly used, and prudently conserved only by the common action of all the people . . .'' Listen to those words and notice the wise approach of a man considered one of our most radical conservationists, a President who put 234 million acres into the public trust. This is not a man who lived on the ideological extremes. He did not advocate roping off all the land and allowing no admittance. Nor would he stand by and let the land be ransacked and misused. Let me speak again his words: ``. . . wisely developed, rightly used, and prudently conserved . . .'' That approach was correct in 1909, and it is the right one now. Today's younger generation understands that our natural resources are not limitless, that we can not endlessly exploit them. They are more environmentally savvy perhaps than their parents. And I believe they also grasp the need for smart conservation, for devising collaborative policies that ensure public access to public land now and in the future. Some lands ought to have restrictions on use. I do not dispute that, and I do not advocate any careless ``rollback'' of environmental regulations. But this is not a time to exact an economic toll on our country by ignoring the resources available for use in our public lands. It is a time to tap into our ingenuity and devise ways to utilize them while responsibly mitigating any environmental impact. This is not an insurmountable challenge; Americans have accomplished more difficult tasks in our history. Lastly, I would like to emphasize the issue of public ownership. These lands are owned by the people. We policymakers need to always keep that in mind and not just pay this fact lipservice. National Public Lands Day is a perfect time to remind ourselves who owns this land. We must be flexible with the different types of recreation and access to public land that people want. Mr. President, in closing, let me add that Americans have always had a strong relationship with public lands and have always understood the need to preserve them for posterity. Sometimes we hear it said that people only care for what they themselves privately owned that what is held in common will often fall into disrepair. The work that will be accomplished this September 30th disproves that idea. And I am optimistic that future generations will be enjoying the same public lands we do today.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 3636, a bill to establish wilderness areas, promote conservation, improve public land, and provide for high quality economic development in Washington County, Utah, and for other purposes; and S. 3772, a bill to establish wilderness areas, promote conservation, improve public land, and provide for high quality development in White Pine County, Nevada, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics at 202-224- 2878, Dick Bouts at 202-224-7545, or Sara Zecher 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act introduced today by Senator Pete Domenici. Senator Domenici has long been a courageous supporter of dependable, emissions-free nuclear energy, and he is largely responsible for the current renaissance of nuclear power in this country--with upwards of 30 new nuclear reactors on the drawing board to be licensed in the next several years. Senator Domenici's landmark legislation will help assure the future of nuclear power in this country by providing the necessary legislation for moving forward on the long-stalled Yucca Mountain repository and authorizing much- needed interim storage for spent fuel and high-level waste that has been accumulating around the country. For used nuclear fuel that will eventually be recycled, the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill approved by the Appropriations Committee earlier this year provides for interim storage of commercial spent fuel at Consolidation and Preparation--CAP--facilities. Senator Domenici's legislation introduced today addresses defense spent fuel and high-level waste that cannot be recycled, so that these wastes will be sent to Yucca Mountain for storage and eventual disposal. In this way, this bill removes the final roadblock to developing new nuclear power in this country. And let me say a few words about this ``roadblock'' to Yucca that has persisted for so many years. The Federal Government made a promise to take possession of spent nuclear fuel in order to safely and permanently dispose of it in a geologic repository. We promised to begin taking this fuel back in 1998--8 years ago. However, through concerted efforts by the state of Nevada and its congressional delegation, progress on Yucca has often slowed to a crawl. This is the classic NIMBY attitude--``not in my backyard.'' And yet my colleague from Nevada, Mr. Reid, has repeatedly called for this Congress and the administration to do something to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases because of his concerns about global warming. This Congress and this administration have done a great deal to promote emission-free power generation. This Congress passed the Energy Policy Act last year, which provided financial incentives for new, emission-free sources of energy, including wind, solar, clean coal--and nuclear. And earlier this year, this administration introduced the Advanced Energy Initiative--AEI--to support research and development of new energy sources--including nuclear power. In fact, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership--GNEP--is one part of the AEI. One goal of GNEP is to reduce the amount and toxicity of nuclear waste ultimately destined for disposal at Yucca Mountain; another goal is to eventually help expand the deployment of emission-free nuclear power in developing countries that otherwise would need to depend on burning fossil fuels for their growing energy demands. Contrary to Senator Reid's comments about doing nothing to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we have done a great deal to develop emission-free energy in this country and abroad. But the deployment of nuclear power requires that we manage the spent fuel from nuclear power plants in a safe and responsible manner. One aspect of that management strategy must be to open the Yucca Mountain repository as soon as possible. As Senator Domenici has said, Yucca Mountain is the cornerstone of a comprehensive spent-fuel management strategy for this country, but Yucca alone cannot meet the government's spent-fuel obligations. Through GNEP we will also explore technologies that promise to reduce the volume and toxicity of spent fuel. Thus, GNEP, interim storage and Yucca Mountain together provide a comprehensive program for safely managing our Nation's Nuclear waste.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act introduced today by Senator Pete Domenici. Senator Domenici has long been a courageous supporter of dependable, emissions-free nuclear energy, and he is largely responsible for the current renaissance of nuclear power in this country--with upwards of 30 new nuclear reactors on the drawing board to be licensed in the next several years. Senator Domenici's landmark legislation will help assure the future of nuclear power in this country by providing the necessary legislation for moving forward on the long-stalled Yucca Mountain repository and authorizing much- needed interim storage for spent fuel and high-level waste that has been accumulating around the country. For used nuclear fuel that will eventually be recycled, the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill approved by the Appropriations Committee earlier this year provides for interim storage of commercial spent fuel at Consolidation and Preparation--CAP--facilities. Senator Domenici's legislation introduced today addresses defense spent fuel and high-level waste that cannot be recycled, so that these wastes will be sent to Yucca Mountain for storage and eventual disposal. In this way, this bill removes the final roadblock to developing new nuclear power in this country. And let me say a few words about this ``roadblock'' to Yucca that has persisted for so many years. The Federal Government made a promise to take possession of spent nuclear fuel in order to safely and permanently dispose of it in a geologic repository. We promised to begin taking this fuel back in 1998--8 years ago. However, through concerted efforts by the state of Nevada and its congressional delegation, progress on Yucca has often slowed to a crawl. This is the classic NIMBY attitude--``not in my backyard.'' And yet my colleague from Nevada, Mr. Reid, has repeatedly called for this Congress and the administration to do something to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases because of his concerns about global warming. This Congress and this administration have done a great deal to promote emission-free power generation. This Congress passed the Energy Policy Act last year, which provided financial incentives for new, emission-free sources of energy, including wind, solar, clean coal--and nuclear. And earlier this year, this administration introduced the Advanced Energy Initiative--AEI--to support research and development of new energy sources--including nuclear power. In fact, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership--GNEP--is one part of the AEI. One goal of GNEP is to reduce the amount and toxicity of nuclear waste ultimately destined for disposal at Yucca Mountain; another goal is to eventually help expand the deployment of emission-free nuclear power in developing countries that otherwise would need to depend on burning fossil fuels for their growing energy demands. Contrary to Senator Reid's comments about doing nothing to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we have done a great deal to develop emission-free energy in this country and abroad. But the deployment of nuclear power requires that we manage the spent fuel from nuclear power plants in a safe and responsible manner. One aspect of that management strategy must be to open the Yucca Mountain repository as soon as possible. As Senator Domenici has said, Yucca Mountain is the cornerstone of a comprehensive spent-fuel management strategy for this country, but Yucca alone cannot meet the government's spent-fuel obligations. Through GNEP we will also explore technologies that promise to reduce the volume and toxicity of spent fuel. Thus, GNEP, interim storage and Yucca Mountain together provide a comprehensive program for safely managing our Nation's Nuclear waste.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. It is necessary that we object. The Senator from Michigan makes a tremendously valuable point. I hope the Senate does the right thing after we come back from the recess for the elections in November to deal with this critical issue which deals with our doctors and Medicare, but at this moment in time, I have to object to proceeding.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business for our side?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first, I wish to recognize the Senator from Colorado for the speech he has just delivered. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Gold Star mothers are always at our committee working with us to ensure that those who survived and are America's veterans are treated fairly and justly and the benefits they have been provided by law are delivered to them. I thank the Senator from Colorado for his recognition of these phenomenal mothers and fathers who have borne the ultimate sacrifice of losing one of their loved ones, one of their children in pursuit of our freedom and justice around the world.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk to our colleagues about something going on in America at this very moment that probably is very pleasing to the average consumer. I came to the floor of the Senate over a month ago to deliver a speech using this map. I called it the ``No-Zone Speech.'' I called it the ``No-Zone Speech'' because all of these red areas around our Nation, off our shores, in the Outer Continental Shelf, are no-zones to oil exploration and development. Why? Because we have said politically we don't want to go there. Yet it is believed by the U.S. Geological Survey that in the no- zone rests maybe 80 billion or 90 billion barrels of oil. I gave that speech in late July of this year at a time when we were debating a very small area down here that could supply upwards of 3 billion or 4 billion barrels of oil, known as lease sale 181. The Senate finally got it, worked out their differences, and passed that legislation. They are now working with the House to try to resolve those differences. But something phenomenal has happened at the gas pump. During the time I delivered that speech, the Senate was working on lease sale 181, and American consumers were paying over $3 a gallon for their gas. What happened? If you went to the pump yesterday in certain parts of our country, you paid less than $2 a gallon, and in my State of Idaho you are paying 30 cents or 40 cents less a gallon than you did in late July or early August. What happened? Let me tell my colleagues what we think happened. It is about the very reality of America developing its oil reserves and becoming less dependent upon foreign, unstable sources. About a month ago, Chevron announced they had discovered in the gulf in what is known as deepwater areas 20,000 feet below the ocean's surface, and 8,000 feet below the ocean's floor, possibly one of the largest oil find discoveries in the history of the United States. That announcement, coupled with the fact that there had been no hurricanes in this area, coupled with the fact that all of the oil development and refinement that was taken off line by Katrina is now back on line and operating, and the reality that there was a new reserve of oil that was secure to our Nation and not dependent upon a foreign unstable political power, changed the dynamics of the oil market. The $70-plus a barrel for crude that refiners were paying in late July was always believed by many of us who study the market to have $20 of the $70 as purely risk money and speculative price. That is gone. That is gone because of this very large discovery down in the gulf and the reality that the Congress is going to act responsibly for the first time and allow some development, some exploration in the no-zone. To think we could become increasingly independent of unstable foreign sources of oil would be phenomenally important for this country and our economy and, most importantly, for the consumer. I am quite sure that the person who pulls up to the gas pump in Mid City USA today and is paying 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80 cents to a dollar less than they paid a month ago is a pretty happy person, and they ought to be. But, more importantly, they ought to be recognizing what they should be asking the Congress of the United States to do, and that is to advance the development of drilling in the no-zone. The Presiding Officer is a Senator from Alaska. She and I and others have worked for years to develop the rest of the oil reserves in Alaska in the ANWR area, where there could be 30 billion or 40 billion barrels of oil, but America's politics has said no, and America's consumers have suffered. Then we work our way down the coast, down through California and all the other areas where the politics of those areas say, no, you can't drill here, and yet we believe there are trillions of cubic feet of gas and potentially billions of barrels of oil. I have worked on the Energy Committee of the Senate since 1990. I have watched as others have worked with me and watched American consumers and the oil industry of our country becoming increasingly dependent on foreign sources. In 1990, it was about 40 percent dependency, and then 42 and then 45 and then 50 and then 55 and then 60. At the peak of this summer's consumption, upwards of maybe 65 percent of our oil was coming from those unstable political regions of the world where, at any moment, a terrorist attack or the bombing of a ship could spike the oil market because the supply would diminish, and that is why we saw $70 a barrel for oil in speculative prices. At just the moment when we are doing lease sale 181, the new discovery happens in the gulf, and the market recognizes that $20 worth of speculation on risk goes away, and American consumers are beginning to recognize the value of being less dependent on foreign oil. A very wise admiral a long time ago fought a very important battle with the politics of America and the politics of an old-style Navy, and his name was Rickover. He said: As long as our surface and subsurface Navy is dependent upon refueling with diesel fuel all over the world, we will not be free and independent. The politics of that was very rigorous. In 1982, Admiral Rickover delivered a speech before Columbia University where he talked about the battles he fought to develop the first Nautilus nuclear-powered submarine. He said that the political battle to get the submarine was more difficult than the design of the submarine itself. Well, that was then, and that was many years ago, and most of us have forgotten that political battle because what we now know is that most of our Navy, both subsurface and surface, is nuclear powered. From the time the new nuclear Navy vessel is built, slides from the drydock into the water, and begins its mission around the world, it is never refueled.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 additional minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CRAIG. So that Navy vessel never has to pull into a port anywhere in the world to refuel itself. It is totally independent. It can travel the world. It can go into the Indian Ocean where it would be very difficult to refuel a diesel-powered vessel, and it sails on. That is why we are the dominant naval power of the world today, because of the vision of a man years ago who said: We must be independent--independent of energy sources for our Navy. Why can't America demand energy independence for all of us? Can you imagine what would happen in our economy today if the hundreds of billions of dollars that are paid for oil from Iraq, from Kuwait, from Venezuela, and other unstable political areas of the world simply didn't have to be paid? Instead we would pay producers in our country for developing the resources that our country still has in the no-zone. Can you imagine our strength as a country? Can you imagine our foreign policy if we didn't have to recognize that we had to work to keep certain areas of the world stable because they are a source of our energy, they are a source of our very heartbeat as a country? They are the very source of the heartbeat of the economy of our country. The recent discovery in the deep waters of the gulf proved the point and proved it loudly, and the markets reacted, and the consumers are benefiting today. This President gets it. He understands it. It is why his first task as a President when he came to power was to develop an energy task force and to lay out for the Nation a national energy strategy that would move us toward energy independence. Oh, the gnashing of teeth, the ringing of hands that occurred on the floor of the Senate: We dare not drill in ANWR. We dare not go here. We must not do this. During the course of all that rhetoric we became increasingly dependent upon unstable political areas of the world for our oil. And the American consumers began to pay the price a couple of years ago when gas went above $2 and then $2.10 and then 50 cents more and then $2.80 and, of course, this summer over $3 a gallon. America's farmers today are now paying $3.20 to $3.50 a gallon for diesel, and they can't control their input costs. Many of them are finding themselves in financial difficulty because of the cost of diesel or the cost of fertilizer because, of course, it takes natural gas to produce fertilizer and nitrogen and phosphates. America, wake up. America, get on your phone and call your Congressman and call your Senator and say: No more no-zone. Allow us to develop our resources and to do so in an environmentally sound way because we now have the technology. We proved it in the shallow waters of the gulf a decade ago. We are now proving it in the deep waters of the gulf as we speak. Clearly, America could be energy independent. There is no question about it. The ability of the farmer to produce corn that is developed into ethanol, the ability of our country to drill in the no-zone says that America could once again stand unafraid around the world as it relates to the political stability of the oil development and the oil- producing regions of a very unstable world. The reason we are dependent today is politics, plain and simple. The reason the Senator from Alaska continually argues for the responsible and environmentally sound development up here in the northern reaches of Alaska is because we can do it and do it right, and there are billions of barrels of oil up there and trillions of cubic feet of gas. And America, once again, as Admiral Rickover understood decades ago, can be independent as she stands for other causes around the world. What a difference a day makes. What a difference one oil find makes because that new Chevron oil find and that new trend in deep water may well increase our oil reserves by 25, 30, 40, 50 percent. What would happen if we were doing the rest of the development in this area, if we were doing the gas development up through Virginia and along the east coast, if we were developing offshore in California, if we were developing in the ANWR in Alaska?

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the reality is very simple and very obvious. It is all at the pump, and the American consumer, I hope, has awakened to the reality of what a difference a day makes in the price of gas and the impact on their family budget and their pocketbooks. Let's drill and develop the no-zones. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak about the issue which is before us at the moment; that is, H.R. 6061. We voted on a motion to proceed to debate today and invoked cloture on that motion by getting a substantial number of votes. Now we are in the next phase of the rule process in which we would actually move to the bill, debate it, and possibly amend it. I voted this morning to move this bill forward because I believe it is important for the American people to understand that we are very serious about border control. If this bill serves that purpose, then that is a step in the right direction. It is not my intent to come here and say it is a bad bill. It is my intent to come to the Senate floor and talk about what we have done to date in the area of border security and that a piece of paper, a piece of legislation, does not a safe border make. It establishes the legal basis for which we build upon a foundation for safe border and border action, but it is the financing of it, it is the funding of the necessary construction, the supplying and the training of Border Patrol men and women, and creating the devices and vehicles necessary to effectively monitor and control our borders that build a safe border. Step 1 is a very critical process this Senate, and the Congress itself, has been involved in for some time; that is, the recognition of a broken immigration system and an unsecured border structure in our country that has allowed, over two decades, possibly 8 to 10 million foreign nationals to come into this country illegally. America didn't awaken to this issue until after 9/11. It awakened because it found that some who had come, legally and illegally, were intent on delivering the citizens of this country an evil act, and that happened. Not only did it kill nearly 3,000 of our fellow country men and women, but it launched this country into a new dimension of foreign policy that we had not been involved in or as intent on as we should have been a long while ago--a war against radical Islamic fundamentalism and the tools they use in that war known as terrorism. That is where we are today. It has swept our country. It is the political debate of the day. It is the frustration of the American citizen to try to understand why we are where we are today and what we are doing and why young men and women bearing the uniform of the United States of America are dying in a foreign land or foreign lands. All of this issue is really one. It is a combination of understanding the world we live in, and that is a world that is not as safe as we would like it to be, and there are very real enemies out there. But it is also understanding a new world that we live in right here on the North American Continent and one that we have ignored for years; that is, creating secure borders and defining and designing a well-run immigration program that responds to our needs and our economy and, at the same time, is fair and responsible to those foreign nationals who would like to come to our country to work. I began to work on this issue not just a year ago, not just 2 years ago, but in 1999. I first looked at it through the eyes of American agriculture when they came to me and said: Senator, we have a problem. We have a very big problem. The H-2A program that supplies foreign national workers to agriculture doesn't work. It is broken. It is bureaucratic. It is nonfunctional and doesn't meet our seasonal needs. As a result, that Federal H-2A guest worker program only supplies about 40,000 to 45,000 workers. But we need and have over 1 million in our workforce who are foreign nationals and, frankly, they are illegal, and we know they are. It ought to be fixed because we don't want to base our economy as American agricultural producers on an illegal process because someday it may do us damage. So I began to work, along with several others, to try to build and propose changes within the immigration laws to create a legal guest worker program. We were doing that in 1999 and 2000. And in 2001, as we all know, America's roof literally fell in as we were attacked by the terrorist elements of radical Islamic fundamentalism. America became angry and frustrated. We began to find out that our immigration process was broken. I knew about it. I was working on it at the time. What I kept saying to my colleagues in counseling them is, as we secure our borders, let's also redo our immigration laws to identify the illegals who are in our country--treat them justly and fairly but identify them--to see if some of them deserve to stay here and work, while at the same time making sure we have a system that in the future recognizes the need for immigrant labor in our economy and specific to agriculture. We worked on that a long while. This year the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill. Parts of it I agreed with and parts I disagreed with. I voted for it to move the process along because I thought it was critically necessary because I didn't want to get the cart in front of the horse. I wanted the horse in front of the cart, and the horse in front of the cart is border security as a first line of defense in monitoring and controlling illegals in our country. The second line is a legal process which makes sure that those who are here are legal, and those who want to come to work in our economy are legal. And if you don't do them both in tandem, I think you create phenomenal problems for our country and our economy. While we have been doing all of this, some would say we have done nothing on the border. That is why we need to pass H.R. 6061. If they are saying that, they are not looking at the facts, and they don't recognize what has happened. Let me read some of the facts of what we are doing. We have increased funding by $7.97 billion--billion--for border, port, and maritime security. We spent $34 billion on the border and port and maritime security to date. We have added 3,736 new Border Patrol agents, out of a total of 14,000, whom we are training and supplying over the next 5 years. And it was the Craig-Byrd amendment of 2 years ago, at the time of appropriations on the floor, when real dollars went into the program--$500 million a year--to train those border patrolmen that we are talking about right here at this moment. So if you detain and arrest foreign nationals who are illegal in our country, what do you do with them? You have to hold them. We didn't have anyplace to keep them. We have now added 9,150 new detention beds out of a total of 27,000. We are now building 370 miles of fences in the congested urban areas along our southwestern border with Mexico. We are doing it right now. The legislation before us simply talks about it. Concrete is being poured, wire is being strung, and double fencing is being created as we speak. Why? Because many of us thought it necessary 2 or 3 years ago to get started in this process that is critically important right now. In the area of border tactical infrastructure and facility construction--and by that we are talking about surveillance equipment, electronics, sensing devices--$682 million is being spent. The numbers go on and on and on. Why I am here talking about this is because we are today building a border system to secure and control our borders. Just before the Easter recess, I was one of those privileged to be at the White House to talk to our President about our chairmanships. I am chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. And that afternoon the President said to me: Well, Senator Craig, how are things in Veterans? I said: Mr. President, I don't want to talk about veterans today. I want to talk to you about something that I think is critical and necessary that we do now. He said: What is that? I said: I think you need to declare a state of emergency on our southwest border, nationalize the Guard, assemble our National Guard on the border and close it. He looked at me with a bit of surprise. He said: How can you propose that? You are the advocate of AgJOBS, Senator Craig. You are the guy out there promoting reform in immigration right now. I said very simply and very clearly: Mr. President, we have to build credibility with the American people that we have lost because our borders are not secure and we have not controlled them. Now, all of us and all who may be listening know the rest of that story. There are now 6,000 Guard men and women deployed to our southwest border, and that allows us to more effectively utilize the Border Patrol along our border and to spread our Guard out into the broad expanses of a 2,000-mile border which are maybe less dangerous than the congested areas where the greatest numbers come across. Our Guard men and women are not policemen. Our border patrolmen are. They are trained. They are officers of the law so they can detain and arrest. But at the same time, the combination of using our border patrolmen, our National Guard men and women, and our Border Patrol is the right combination. The reason I talk about this and set this idea in front of my colleagues is to express what is really going on out there; that is, this country is investing heavily on the southwestern border as we speak. We are spending billions of dollars. Fences are being built, and there are literally thousands of our men and women on that border securing it. Is it working? Yes, it is working. Is our border closed? No, it is not. It is a 2,000-mile border across arid, desolate, and oftentimes extremely rugged terrain, and we will have to continue to invest to do that. Let me tell my colleagues and show my colleagues the proof of what I am saying. The border is closing. My colleagues will remember that cart-and-horse analogy I used a few moments ago, where if we didn't close the border and get a comprehensive legal process to bring migrant workers into our country for the sake of agriculture and other industries, we could do real damage to our economy. So the border is closing, but we haven't passed a comprehensive reform bill. In fact, the politics would suggest we can't get there right now. And most assuredly, the U.S. House of Representatives, in my opinion, did the wrong thing this summer. They went out and condemned the work product of the Senate when they should have been at a conference table trying to work out our differences. They should have been trying to solve the very real problem that is now embodied in all of these press releases which are pouring in from across the country that speak of the crisis in American agriculture. It is a crisis born out of the reality of what I have just talked about: that a border that should be closed and secured is, in fact, closing and being secured. Let me start with Idaho: ``Potato Growers Struggle Without Immigrant Labor.'' The potato harvest is now just starting in the State of Idaho. The packing sheds will soon be full as that marvelous Idaho baking potato begins to sell in the world market. There aren't enough people available this year to help harvest those potatoes, and many of those people who are not available are migrant workers. The reason they are not there is because they can't get there. The legal system can't function quickly enough to get them there, and those who were coming illegally aren't coming because the border is closing. Another press release: ``Potato Growers Face Labor Shortage.'' That is just in Idaho where tragically enough, and in a real sense, we probably have 30,000 or 40,000 illegal foreign nationals working in agriculture and other work areas every year, and our unemployment rate is 2.5 percent, which means we are at full employment. But we need that kind of labor, and it is not coming. Now let me continue--but only for a moment because other colleagues are here on the Senate floor to talk about this issue--down through these press releases. My colleague from California is on the Senate floor. She represents the largest, wealthiest agricultural region in our Nation known as the great San Joaquin Valley. There is no other agriculture like it in the world. If you haven't been there and visited, it is simply worth your time. Every fresh fruit and vegetable known to any consumer in this country is grown in the great San Joaquin Valley. I have always marveled at that agriculture. It is also true the Senator from California and the San Joaquin Valley probably host more illegal workers than any other area in our country. What is happening there today is that crops are rotting in the fields. Fruit is not being picked. Vegetables are not being harvested. That kind of agriculture that is intensively hand labor agriculture is suffering. I am told by some we could literally lose the raisin industry of our country, and that would be a tragedy if the politics of the Congress will not allow us to get to a legal system to allow that type of workforce to exist in our country today. I could walk my colleagues through hundreds of press releases and the stories now being told by American agriculture of nobody there to help them pick their crops, to supply the marvelous vegetable stands of the produce sections of America's retail food industry with the abundance that we have all known. We saw it start in February in Yuma, AZ, in the great Imperial Valley where billions of dollars' worth of vegetables are picked in February and March to supply us--lettuce and celery and all of those kinds of things that we are used to. A third of it didn't get picked this year. That is a crop that is worth $3.2 billion at the farm gate, and a third of it rotted in the fields because we in Congress couldn't get our act together. That is a tragedy and it is a shame. It is believed between now and the end of harvest, or between now and next year, American agriculture could literally lose billions of dollars' worth of fresh produce that would go to the supermarket shelves of our country for all of us to eat, all of us. And if it isn't there and there is a limited amount, you know what happens. The price starts heading up. Those producers of those products tell me they have advertised in their communities, they have pled with people to come out and work. They said they would increase their salaries substantially. But nobody is there to do the work. Americans do not do stoop labor anymore. It is a reality that we ought to face. Yet we have not been willing to face it. Yes, we need a fence and we are building it. Yes, we need border security and we are accomplishing it, and we have not finished. Clearly, for the safety and security of this country our borders are more important than nearly anything else. But if you cannot feed your country, if you are going to lose your agriculture, if you are going to cause bankruptcies that are no fault of the farmers themselves, then you are doing some very real damage--along with your unwillingness to recognize the reality of a law that no longer works and a work product we are trying to accomplish at this moment. We will probably have to go through an election. We will probably have to get the politics of the election out of the way before the House and Senate will come to the reality of the problem that is clearly before us today because we are just a week and a half from adjournment or recess until after the election. The kind of comprehensive work that we should have been doing in August and we should have been doing in September turned into politics and not constructive work. I hope the House bill in front of us is not an extension of those politics and politics alone. I hope it really is meant to fit into a total package of border control and comprehensive immigration reform that allows this country and our economy and our hard-working agricultural people a legal, transparent, and open guest worker immigrant labor force. We need it. We have always needed it. We should not be denying its reality today. The Senate attempted to accomplish that. We argued mightily on immigration reform on the floor of the Senate for nearly a month, and we do not all agree because it is in itself a very contentious issue. It has all aspects of the American culture and the American emotion tied into it. But as we studied it I think a majority recognized the reality of doing the right thing. The horse and the cart have to be connected. Border control and border security is the first line of defense, and a legal structure behind it that gives employers a legal, identifiable workforce is necessary and appropriate, and they have to be connected. Let me close with this thought: We do not reform immigration laws in this country, we let them go. Politically we will not handle them. But we will continue to tighten a fence until our 2,000-mile land border is complete and the border closes. There will be a new phenomenon emerge in the port of Los Angeles along the coast of California, and they will be called ``boat people.'' Because those who want to come here to work, once we have created the fence across the land surface that they now trek, will find another way to get here. Somebody in a fast speedboat will charge $1,000 a head and they will pick them up in Mexico and shoot them around the water and across the waters and into the coastline. My point is simply this. You have to have two things that work here to make it work. You have to have border security and you have to have a law, a law that works, so when that employer hires a foreign national, the ID card is real and they know they are hiring a legal person. I am not going to put American agriculture or any other law-abiding employer at risk when they need people to get the harvest out unless we do so in a way that says we will sanction you if you hire somebody who is illegal, but we are going to make sure that you have a workforce that is legal and has the kind of transparency of ID and uncounterfeitable documents that are critical and that are in the Senate bill. Those are some of the issues we need to talk about and we are going to ignore now until after the election. Here are the press releases. Billions of dollars will be lost in American agriculture this year and American consumers will pay an increased price for the quality produce they buy on the fresh fruit shelves of our country. It is a reality. It is happening as we speak. I thought it was important that I come to the floor to talk about it. Most want to simply ignore it because the politics of the issue is simply too difficult to deal with. It is not too difficult to deal with. We can do both as a great nation. We can secure our borders. We can improve our immigration laws. We can provide a legal and necessary guest worker/migrant worker program for the segments of our economy that speak to that type of workforce. It is our responsibility. I hope we do not shirk it or turn our back on it. American agriculture, along with a lot of other segments of our economy, will suffer if, in fact, we do not have the political will to accomplish the right and responsible issue and things at hand. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. I believe when there was a clear and clean vote on AgJOBS alone there were 53 who voted for it that day and there were 4 absent who would have voted for it. I believe there are between 58 and 60 votes for the AgJOBS provision and bill the Senator speaks to.

Mr. CRAIG. That is correct.

Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator will yield, she makes a tremendously important point. The original AgJOBS bill that brought the vote I just spoke to is not the bill before us now. The amendments that the Senator has brought and the amendment that I brought--because the Judiciary Committee itself changed some of it at the Senator's guidance and direction, and on the floor we added additional amendments--added the safeguards and protections and fines and the requirement of paying back taxes, to cause that illegal, who might become legal through this process, certain responsibilities that were not in the original bill.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator is absolutely correct. It identifies and deals with those agricultural workers who have been here for 3 years or more, who are undocumented, who could become legal. That is step one. Then it deals with a reform, streamlining of and a more usable H-2A Program, to implement an effective guest worker program. The point the Senator is making I think is very important for the Senate to understand. If we were to pass AgJOBS tomorrow, if it were to become law, many agricultural workers who were once in the field working but may have moved somewhere else in our economy with the opportunity to become legal would return to agriculture. It is not letting more across the border. It is causing those who have moved to construction and housing and other places to say, Gee, you mean I could become a legal worker if I went back to agriculture and stayed there for 150 workdays? The answer is yes. There could be a near immediate relief brought by the passage of the AgJOBS provision.

Mr. CRAIG. We are not quite sure. We believe it could be between 35,000 and 40,000.