Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Tomorrow the Senate will continue to work on the Defense Authorization Act. There are several pending amendments, and we hope to have a vote in the morning on one of those amendments. The chairman and ranking member will be here to work on amendments. We will announce when a vote is locked in.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 516, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the EPW Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to H. Con. Res. 372.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, June 20. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to 30 minutes, with 15 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the final 15 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; further, that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2766, the Defense authorization act, and that Senator Reed be recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes. I further ask consent that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to accommodate the weekly Democratic policy luncheon.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, like my colleague from Missouri, I come today to address the Senate and my fellow countrymen on the developments in Iraq and to speak to the American public about the war and our efforts in the Middle East. Before I begin, let me quickly state that, like many Americans across the country, I have and will maintain steadfast and strong support for our men and women in uniform. Also, like many Americans across the country, I, too, over the last good many months have had moments of doubt regarding the progress in Iraq and the overwhelming challenges that the Iraqis and Americans and coalition forces have faced there. When I go out to Walter Reed Hospital to visit with our young men and women who are having new parts put on their bodies as a result of the explosions and bombings in Iraq, and I feel their spirit and desire to continue to serve and I speak to them of the mission they were involved in, I come back to my office on Capitol Hill more dedicated than ever to assure that these young men and women are allowed to continue to work to finish their mission. However, seeing through the fog of war, seeing through the interpretation by the liberal media is a frustration that most Americans are consumed with at this moment. Only the bad is reported and rarely the good. But the other day something good happened that could not be denied by the media of this world. That was the annihilation of Zarqawi and the unquestionable proof that intelligence and informants have the al-Qaida on the run in Iraq. The liberal media could not step away from the reality of that message. Two 500-pound bombs delivered it loudly around the world. While it says a lot about our own intelligence, it is my opinion and I am told it says a great deal about the Iraqi people who are fed up with the way they are being treated by the insurgent forces in Iraq, and many of those forces are from outside their country. Some in this country, and even some in this body, are saying: Well, that was just then, and we have to deal with now and into the immediate future. Let's get out of there, let's cut and run. It is time we bring our soldiers home. I suggest that it may be time to adjust tactics. They have a new government in Iraq. It is now whole, it is stood up, it is running, and it is putting its own people out in front in defense of its country, both in the military and in the civilian police. Now is not the time to leave this fledgling new country standing alone. Our tactics may change and we may step back a bit, but I believe we have to be there to continue to strengthen and allow them to grow. The message of turning away from the recent successes and turning away from Iraqi men and women and children who are on the verge of freedom for the first time sends a phenomenal ill-fated doomsday message to the Iraqi people and speaks loudly to the world. And, most importantly, it sends a strong message to the terrorists that all they have to do is be patient, take their losses along the way, because America's will will melt and we will leave. First and foremost, if we cannot and won't finish the job we set out to do, we will forever question our own future, and the people around the world will question our resolve. Simply put, we are at, I believe, a defining moment not only in the future of Iraq, but in the future of our own Nation with the message we send around the world. Therefore, it is imperative that this country and the people of this country stand up and send a message to the terrorists and to the Iraqi people that we will not be deterred, we will finish our job in cooperation with the Iraqi Government. I believe that is the message our President delivered in the last 24 hours as he flew to Iraq to visit with the new Government and our troops. Right now, there is a new al-Qaida leader somewhere in Iraq. I will bet he is not sleeping at night. I will bet he is running from house to house. My guess is that his immediates around him are doing the same thing because we receive now thousands and thousands of informant messages, and this man, while he has a new title of leader, is being hunted by a young man from Twin Falls, ID, or from Manchester, England, or from Kirkut. Those are the realities of war. That is why we stand on the Senate floor talking on behalf of this country's future and the men and women who wear our uniform and the mission we have sent them to do. Removing U.S. forces, that are standing side-by-side with Iraqi and coalition forces, will effectively and instantly remove the fear that we have now embedded within al-Qaida members now on the run in Iraq. I am certain that those Members in this body advocating for the U.S. to pull out fully understand and appreciate the role foreign assistance played in helping our colonies become the great Republic it is today. Without French military and economic assistance the will of the American Revolutionaries would have been broken long before our final push was fought to gain a free, independent, and sovereign republic. To cut and run today, especially in light of our recent successes, would be equivalent the U.S. colonies fighting without French assistance. Simply put, without foreign military assistance to this country none of us would be standing here today in the world's greatest deliberative body and the bell of liberty would never have rang. So, today, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to step up, look in the mirror, and recall how our very own country was established. Failure to stay the course on this endeavor is short- sighted, hypocritical, and goes squarely against the principles and the very reason this country was conceived and founded upon. Mr. President, we have much to be thankful for today. As such, I urge my colleagues to help give the Iraqi people what this country so desired in 1776, freedom. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today as cochair of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Congressional Caucus, which has helped communities and tribes across the country commemorate the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Our goal is to provide resources that promote and enhance tourism opportunities that reflect unique local characteristics, interests, and history along the Lewis and Clark Trail. Over the last 3 years, America has commemorated this historic journey to the West, celebrating culture and life. This Saturday, we will again recognize the daring journey of the Lewis and Clark expedition that helped discover the West and her vast resources and viewscapes we enjoy today. The Summer of Peace Signature Event in Idaho is an opportunity for all of us to evaluate the long chain of cause and effect that links past, present, and future. From the journal entries, we have learned the explorers were not only discoverers and describers of the unknown land, but also sightseers whose experiences depended on the good will and assistance of strangers. The Lewis and Clark Expedition entered the Nimiipuu, Nez Perce, aboriginal homelands in September of 1805, and with this first chance encounter, they were met with caution. After crossing the daunting Rocky Mountains, the explorers were in dire need of food and shelter. They described the Nimiipuu as friendly, hospitable, and gracious hosts who assisted the expedition. Without the assistance of tribes such as the Nimiipuu, Lewis and Clark and their party would have likely become lost or died from starvation. The expedition itself heavily relied on those who inhabited the land--their survival depended on American Indians' willingness to share knowledge about the land, its resources, and practical routes across it. Today, the Nez Perce, Lemhi Shoshone, and other American tribes are working diligently to preserve the heritage and culture that was such a large part of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, and that played such a significant role in the history of the West. The leadership of these tribes of yesterday and today has helped shape the identity of America and the West. The Nez Perce Tribe in particular has become very closely involved with the commemoration, and has been an integral part of planning and preparing for Idaho's part of the celebration, including events like the Summer of Peace Signature Event. This event not only honors the contributions of the Nimiipuu then, it recognizes the tradition of peaceful and meaningful relationships that characterize the American West.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 21st, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to review the Government Accountability Office report entitled ``Wildland Fire Suppression--Lack of Clear Guidance Raises Concerns about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities'' (GAO-06-570). 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 or Sara Zecher 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I quote: Hawaii illustrates the Nation's revolutionary message of equality of opportunity for all, regardless of background, color, or religion. This is the promise of Hawaii, a promise for the entire Nation and, indeed, the world, that peoples of different races and creeds can live together, enriching each other, in harmony and democracy. That is Lawrence H. Fuchs, Hawaii Pono, 1961, written at the time of statehood. Today, with that quote in mind, I rise in opposition to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2006. As my colleague just mentioned, I respect both of my Hawaiian colleagues and the work they have done to promote the culture and heritage of their native people. At the same time, I must disagree with the underlying notion of this bill. The major argument in favor of this bill is the notion that Congress should create a Native Hawaiian tribe in order to treat them the same as American Indians and Native Alaskans. But Congress cannot simply create an Indian tribe. Only those groups of people who have long operated as an Indian tribe, lived as a separate and distinct community--geographically and culturally--and have a preexisting political structure can be organized as a tribe. Hawaiians could never qualify as an American Indian tribe. First, they do not have the preexisting political structure. Prior to secession from the Republic of Hawaii, Hawaii operated under a monarchy and not a tribe. Even if they were once organized in tribal governments, they have had no type of Native Hawaiian government for over 100 years. Furthermore, in 1959, 94 percent of Hawaiians voted favorably to approve the Hawaii Statehood Act and become American citizens. At this time, there was an understanding that Hawaii's native people would not be treated as a separate racial group and that they would not be transformed into an Indian tribe. Second, Native Hawaiians do not have an independent and separate community. In fact, Hawaii is one of the most integrated and blended societies in America. Hawaii is, in essence, America's great melting pot. The creation of a Native Hawaiian race-based government entity would drive a wedge into the now harmonious melting pot of the Hawaiian culture. This bill is asking us to pretend that a tribe existed based on the sharing of one drop of blood. We cannot simply reorganize a tribe that never existed or create a new race-based government entity. Furthermore, using Congress to create a tribe offends the very idea of equal protection under the law. Creating a Native Hawaiian tribe, especially one with no borders, undermines our constitutional rights.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 more minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleagues for allowing that to happen. This would establish a set of laws for Native Hawaiians and another set of laws for non-natives, some of whom have lived on the island for generations. This division would create a wedge, in my opinion, in the Hawaiian community. It would create two sets of laws for a group of people who live in the same neighborhoods, attend the same schools, and go to church together. A Native Hawaiian could be subject to one set of laws while his neighbor is subject to a different set of laws. I think not. The legislation offends a founding principle of this Nation: that all men and women are created equal--we have fought wars and struggled mightily down through the decades to make that happen--not men and women with Hawaiian blood are equal, and those without Hawaiian blood are equal. That is a confusing thought. As the Supreme Court stated, ``In the eyes of the government, we are just one race--it is American.'' It is astonishing that Congress is considering creating a race-based government in Hawaii given the tremendous progress that this Nation has made, as I have mentioned, in eliminating race as a distinguishing characteristic among its citizens. Presumptive color blindness and race neutrality is now at the core of our legal system and cultural environment and represents one of the most important American achievements of the 21st century. To create a race-based government would be offensive to our Nation's commitment to equal justice and the elimination of racial distinctions in the law. The inevitable constitutional challenge to this bill almost certainly would reach the U.S. Supreme Court. We cannot simply circumvent the Supreme Court's holding and strict scrutiny of race- based tests. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission issued a report earlier this year that recommended that Congress reject this bill or any other legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege. This bill would authorize a government entity to treat people differently based on their race and ethnicity. Again, this notion runs counter to the basic American value that the government should not give preference to one race. Our most violent internal conflicts, whether in the 1860s or the 1960s, have revolved around efforts to eliminate the laws of racial distinctions and to encourage a culture where all citizens become comfortable as a part of the American race. Creating a race-based government in Hawaii would create a dangerous precedent that could lead to ethnic balkanization. This is a huge step backwards in our American struggle to advance civil rights and to ensure equal protection for all Americans under the law. This journey is by no means complete, but this bill halts progress in that very important journey and sends an entirely contrary message--a message of racial division and racial distinction and ethnic separatism and of rejection of the American melting pot ideal. As many of our colleagues have said, and I repeat: We so respect our Hawaiian colleagues, our Hawaiian friends; at the same time, we must reject this idea that there is a separation spoken to in this law unique to a race or a culture. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Pele Peacock, a law clerk in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate regarding the Native Hawaiians legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce legislation to authorize major medical facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. Most VA hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and research facilities have ongoing needs for maintenance, repair, and modernization to promote patient and employee safety and provide a higher standard of care for our Nation's veterans. Earlier this month, I held a hearing of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on these needs, at which VA and a service organization representative delivered testimony about what is required in the next phase of addressing the needs of health care facilities for our Nation's veterans. In addition, several committee members and noncommittee colleagues remarked about the significance of these projects to their States. It is my belief that this bill will expand VA's ability to provide health care services to this group of deserving Americans. I will take a few moments now to explain the provisions of this legislation. First, the bill authorizes three major medical facility projects in immediate need of fiscal year 2006 authorization; the restoration of VA's health care infrastructure in the Biloxi and New Orleans areas following Hurricane Katrina, and the cost of land acquisition for replacement of the current Denver VA Medical Center with a new facility at the former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center. The Denver facility was constructed over a half-century ago and many of the core facilities have been deemed to be past or near the end of their useful life. Second, this legislation reauthorizes 18 major medical facility construction projects that were authorized under Public Law 108-170, but for which it is unlikely that contract awards will be accomplished by September 30, 2006, as required by that law. Therefore, for each of these projects, the draft bill extends the date by which contracts must be awarded, from September 30, 2006, September 20, 2009. These projects were identified and prioritized under the capital asset realignment for enhanced services process. CARES, as it has become known, is a market- based national assessment of infrastructure needs that VA has developed into a schedule for completion. These projects represent the most pressing CARES-identified needs that VA has undertaken in order to improve access-to-care and provide services in areas of recent, current, and projected growth in veterans population, such as Las Vegas and Orlando. To allow a lapse in VA's authority to move forward on these projects would result in tremendous setbacks, and conceivably, additional taxpayer expense. Third, the legislation authorizes major medical facility leases that did not receive. authorization in the current fiscal for outpatient clinics in Baltimore, MD, Marion, IL, and the Dallas, TX, area. In addition, five major medical facility leases fiscal year 2007 are included for outpatient clinics in Austin, TX, Lowell, MA, Grand Rapids, MI, Las Vegas, NV, and Parma, OH. This legislation represents the administration's request of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Congress, with a significant exception. I have chosen not to authorize the six requested fiscal year 2007 major medical facility construction projects at this time. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that my intent is not to micromanage VA's construction budget or to delay the Department's capital plan. And no one in the Senate is more committed to seeing that we are not diverting important resources away from facilities that are extremely important to our veterans. But as chairman of this committee, my approach puts Congress on record as expecting progress with the 18 CARES projects on which we are extending authorizations, attaching a reasonable amount of money to those efforts, and then monitoring the progress closely from the Veterans' Committee. As we have seen with the need for significant and expensive Katrina-related construction, VA's capital plan requires consistent monitoring, frequent review and, at times, significant modification. But VA must finish some of what it has started before taking on new major projects. Over the next several weeks, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will be taking up this bill and other legislation introduced to improve the range of services and benefits available to our Nation's veterans. I look forward to working with my colleagues throughout the rest of this Congress on these and other important efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce legislation to authorize major medical facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. Most VA hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and research facilities have ongoing needs for maintenance, repair, and modernization to promote patient and employee safety and provide a higher standard of care for our Nation's veterans. Earlier this month, I held a hearing of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on these needs, at which VA and a service organization representative delivered testimony about what is required in the next phase of addressing the needs of health care facilities for our Nation's veterans. In addition, several committee members and noncommittee colleagues remarked about the significance of these projects to their States. It is my belief that this bill will expand VA's ability to provide health care services to this group of deserving Americans. I will take a few moments now to explain the provisions of this legislation. First, the bill authorizes three major medical facility projects in immediate need of fiscal year 2006 authorization; the restoration of VA's health care infrastructure in the Biloxi and New Orleans areas following Hurricane Katrina, and the cost of land acquisition for replacement of the current Denver VA Medical Center with a new facility at the former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center. The Denver facility was constructed over a half-century ago and many of the core facilities have been deemed to be past or near the end of their useful life. Second, this legislation reauthorizes 18 major medical facility construction projects that were authorized under Public Law 108-170, but for which it is unlikely that contract awards will be accomplished by September 30, 2006, as required by that law. Therefore, for each of these projects, the draft bill extends the date by which contracts must be awarded, from September 30, 2006, September 20, 2009. These projects were identified and prioritized under the capital asset realignment for enhanced services process. CARES, as it has become known, is a market- based national assessment of infrastructure needs that VA has developed into a schedule for completion. These projects represent the most pressing CARES-identified needs that VA has undertaken in order to improve access-to-care and provide services in areas of recent, current, and projected growth in veterans population, such as Las Vegas and Orlando. To allow a lapse in VA's authority to move forward on these projects would result in tremendous setbacks, and conceivably, additional taxpayer expense. Third, the legislation authorizes major medical facility leases that did not receive. authorization in the current fiscal for outpatient clinics in Baltimore, MD, Marion, IL, and the Dallas, TX, area. In addition, five major medical facility leases fiscal year 2007 are included for outpatient clinics in Austin, TX, Lowell, MA, Grand Rapids, MI, Las Vegas, NV, and Parma, OH. This legislation represents the administration's request of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Congress, with a significant exception. I have chosen not to authorize the six requested fiscal year 2007 major medical facility construction projects at this time. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that my intent is not to micromanage VA's construction budget or to delay the Department's capital plan. And no one in the Senate is more committed to seeing that we are not diverting important resources away from facilities that are extremely important to our veterans. But as chairman of this committee, my approach puts Congress on record as expecting progress with the 18 CARES projects on which we are extending authorizations, attaching a reasonable amount of money to those efforts, and then monitoring the progress closely from the Veterans' Committee. As we have seen with the need for significant and expensive Katrina-related construction, VA's capital plan requires consistent monitoring, frequent review and, at times, significant modification. But VA must finish some of what it has started before taking on new major projects. Over the next several weeks, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will be taking up this bill and other legislation introduced to improve the range of services and benefits available to our Nation's veterans. I look forward to working with my colleagues throughout the rest of this Congress on these and other important efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to comment on legislation introduced yesterday, S. 3122, the Patriot Loan Act of 2006. It is called the Patriot Loan Act for that is who the legislation is intended to benefit, patriot citizen-soldiers who are called from their employment at America's small businesses to serve our country in uniform. I am proud to join with Senator Olympia Snowe, who serves as the chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, as an original cosponsor of this important bill. All of us in the Senate come from States affected by the mobilization of our Guard and Reserve personnel. In my home State, the Idaho National Guard's 116th Brigade Combat Team turned last fall from its 18-month deployment to Iraq. I visited members of the 116th while they were in Iraq and discovered that a good number of them left jobs at small businesses across Idaho. I also held a hearing in Idaho last August regarding the reemployment rights of returning Guard and Reserve members, with particular focus on how those rights would impact members of the 116th. At that hearing it was emphasized that, while legal rights to reemployment are critical, they do little good for those who have no employer, or no small business, to return to. I resolved then to find some way to assist small businesses to cope with the financial hardships of frequent and lengthy mobilizations of its employees or owners during the war on terrorism. I believe S. 3122 will provide some of that needed assistance. The legislation would enhance the U.S. Small Business Administration's Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan, or ``MREIDL,'' Program. That program provides loan assistance to small businesses to help them meet ordinary and necessary operating expenses after essential employees are called to active duty in their roles as citizen soldiers. S. 3122 would raise the maximum military reservist loan amount from $1.5 million to $2 million. It would also allow the Small Business Administration's administrator, by direct loan or through banks, to offer unsecure loans of up to $25,000, an increase from the current $5,000 loan limit: So that there are no processing delays, S. 3122 would require the SBA administrator to give these loan applications priority, and would require that loan applicants be adequately assisted during the application process by utilizing existing support networks, such as Small Business Development Centers. Finally, S. 3122 would ensure proactive outreach about the MREIDL Program for Guard and Reserve members by requiring SBA and the Department of Defense to develop a joint Web site and printed materials with information about the program, and it would require a joint SBA and DD feasibility study on other methods of possible assistance. Just as the Guard and Reserve are serving us now, we must do what we can to ensure that their sacrifices do not place them in financial harm's way on their return home. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I, again, thank Senator Snowe for her leadership in introducing it.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on S. 1235, the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Act of 2006. This legislation is the product of a compromise agreement reached between the Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs. The legislation cleared the House on Monday by a unanimous vote of 372 to 0. Its passage today in the Senate will continue the tradition of cooperation between the two Houses of Congress and among all political parties when it comes to legislation to improve the benefits and services available for our nation's veterans. Before I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who worked diligently on the provisions of this bill, I would like to take a few moments to comment on provisions that I was particularly interested in seeing enacted in that they will impact the lives of servicemembers returning from the global war on terrorism who have severe disabilities. It is quite natural, and in many cases necessary for therapeutic or rehabilitative reasons, for a young servicemember who is severely wounded to spend some time convalescing at the home of his or her family before moving on to live a fully independent life. The nature of some severely wounded servicemembers' wounds require adaptations to the homes in which they live--such as larger doorways, ramps, hand rails, and other modifications. VA has a grant program to assist servicemembers and veterans with expenses associated with these modifications, but the program needs greater flexibility to address the reality of how young wounded warriors convalesce. Section 101 of the legislation provides that flexibility. It authorizes VA to equip a family member's home using a partial grant--with some portion, or all, of the remainder of the grant available for later use--of between $2,000 and $14,000. I was proud to join Senator John Sununu on an amendment that cleared the Senate earlier this year that contained this provision. I am even prouder that we were able to include it in the final bill. Section 301 of S. 1235 is another provision that makes a reasonable accommodation in a benefit program to meet the realities faced by convalescing, severely disabled servicemembers. Servicemembers adjudicated as totally disabled at the time of their separation from service have up to one year after separation to apply to receive premium-free Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage during the 1-year, post separation period, and to convert their coverage to Veterans' Group Life Insurance, or an individual plan or policy. Taking advantage of the conversion option is especially critical for totally disabled veterans who, because of their disabilities, may not be insurable at competitive commercial rates after military service. Through a targeted outreach effort to this population, VA learned that many totally disabled veterans do not convert their coverage to VGLI because they may have neglected post-separation financial planning due to the effects of their disabilities, or because they were simply unaware of the extension option. To give these convalescing servicemembers as much time as possible to make informed decisions about their future financial security, section 301 would extend from 1 to 2 years the available conversion period. There are many other enhancements contained in this legislation. They cover housing, insurance, employment and other miscellaneous benefit programs. And, not a small point in this time of fiscal austerity, the legislation is budget neutral. I would like to take a moment to thank those who are responsible for bringing this compromise agreement to the brink of enactment. First, the committee's ranking member, Senator Daniel Akaka, provided his customary--and indispensable--cooperation and leadership. He and his staff worked very closely with me and my staff to shepherd the original legislation through the Senate, and then to work together with my House colleagues on this compromise. Veterans in Hawaii should be proud to have Senator Akaka at the helm. And I am proud to have him as the committee's ranking member. I salute Chairman Steve Buyer and Ranking Member Lane Evans of the House Veterans' Committee; Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller and Ranking Member Shelley Berkley; and Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Chairman John Boozman and Ranking Member Stephanie Herseth for their work and for their spirit of accommodation. They and their staffs are to be commended for a job well done. Yesterday, the Congress sent bipartisan legislation, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, to the President for his signature. Today, I am also asking my colleagues in the Senate to send the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Act of 2006, to the President. I am thankful that our celebration of Memorial Day on Monday coincides with the Congress sending so strong a message of support to those who have worn the uniform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the attached joint explanatory statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first, how much time remains for the proponents of the bill?

Mr. CRAIG. I ask that I be yielded up to 10 minutes of the 20 minutes, and I be notified when my 10 minutes is expired.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I once again stand in opposition to a Chambliss amendment, and I do so not with any great pride--frankly, with disappointment--because I went to the Senator to see if we could work out a few differences. But it was obvious that the Senator was intent on doing one thing, and that was to destroy the transitional tool that creates stability in the American agricultural workforce that is within this bill. That tool is right here. That tool is called the blue card. We attempt to recognize those in this country who are illegal, who are working in American agriculture, who have been here for 3 years and say: Come forward, and we will allow you then to work in a temporary status with a blue card--no, I am sorry, you do have to take a background check, and if you are a felon, you are out, and if you have three misdemeanors, you are out, and, oh, by the way, now that we just passed Byrd-Gregg, you have to now pay a fine to enter to get the blue card, not of $100, but $600. It is important we do the math on this bill and we get it right. Once you have qualified for the 150 hours to get a permanent work status, then you pay another fine, not $400, but $900. That is what the new math is as a result of the votes of just a few moments ago. So I am not so sure we are making it easy on anyone who toils in the hot sun of America's agricultural fields, who create the stability in the American agricultural workforce today. I don't think we are making it easy on anybody. But let's talk about the key to it, and I think the Senator from Georgia said it was the key, and that is the number of hours in the field. When this negotiated package was put together, we used the Fair Labor Standards Act definition which said 1 hour of work in agriculture creates the day. But we also knew the facts and the reality. Nobody hires any one worker for 1 hour and then they walk off the field. You just don't do that. The Senator just admitted that the average time in the field was 40 hours a week. Those are the facts, those are the realities of the American agricultural workforce. He requires in his amendment 8 hours a day, but here is what he didn't tell you. If you worked 7\1/2\ hours a day, it doesn't count. It is not an aggregate, it is an 8-hour work day. What about the tomato harvesters in California? They average 6.3 hours per work day, but it doesn't count. It is not an aggregate. It is 8 hours under the Chambliss amendment. What about Lake County in California? They work 5 to 7 hours per day for orange pickers, not 8. Those are national statistical facts. What about the Oregon strawberry pickers? They work 7.3 hours per day, not 8. So they could labor in the field 4, 5, 6, 7\1/2\ hours a day, and as I read the Chambliss amendment, it doesn't count. They have to work 8 hours a day to begin to develop the standard established in this bill, and that is fundamentally wrong. What about the peach harvesters in the State of Georgia? Those are H- 2A qualified farmers. They, by their own admission--and I have their paperwork--do not work their pickers 7 hours a day. I think we are being phenomenally fair, but it is important that we don't make this an easy test. These people did enter our country illegally, but they have been here, they have been working hard, they are the backbone of American agriculture, and we are saying: If you come forward and you are honest and you haven't broken the law and you pay a fine going in, you can begin to work, and over a period of 2 to 3 years, 150 hours, you can get permanent work status. Then you can work, you can go home, but you can work in other jobs, too, during the off season of agriculture, if you want. That is the reward of what we are offering. It is fundamentally important that we get this right. I would like to agree with the Senator from Georgia on his English language requirement. The English language requirement that is in the bill that we just adopted, that was offered as an amendment and a qualifier for the bill, is not as tough as the provision the Senator from Georgia puts in his amendment. I must say that when I read these facts that are in the amendment, I have to make the determination that this amendment is not to modify the bill; this amendment is to destroy the transitional tool that creates the stability in American agriculture. We know that nearly 70 percent of American agriculture is premised on an illegal employment base. American agriculture knows it, and they want to fix it. They want to get it right. The Senator from Georgia and I know that H-2A doesn't work. It identifies 40,000-plus; we have over a million in the workforce. We are not going to take them all, and we shouldn't, because we are saying those who have been here for 3 years and can prove it and meet all of these tests and continue to work in the fields are going to earn the right to stay and work, and that is the stabilizing factor in American agriculture. Already, instability is showing up in the workforce of agriculture. Why? Because the borders are tightening, as they should be, and it is critically important that we assure and create the transitional tool. So the Senator comes with key plans, key ideas, key amendments. I agreed with his fines, but now we have fines already built in the bill that are equal to his because of the Byrd-Gregg amendment. So that shouldn't be a factor of determination anymore. I dramatically believe the workday is misrepresented. Let me tell you why. I have an interesting work form here from the Tifton Peach Farmers of Springfield, SC. They by their own admission don't work 8 hours a day; they work 7. No qualification for the hard-working person in the field picking the peaches. That is just fundamentally unfair. Are they illegal? Yes. Did they break the law? Yes. We know that. Yes. Are we forgiving? Well, we fined them. We make them continue to work to qualify, and anybody who has been out there in that farm field knows it is awfully hard work and it is hot and it is dirty. I grew up bucking bails of hay in a farm field. I know a bit of what it is like. And if we are going to require 150 days of work to get through this status into a permanent work status and have the ability to come and go as a legal worker, then we ought to have a well-defined program. Transition is what is important. Cut it off now and create instability. In the Imperial Valley of California and in Yuma, AZ, we harvest nearly 10,000 crates of green vegetables a day. This past year, we did 2,800 a day. Why? No workers. At some point, if we don't get this right, we will tip American agriculture on its head, and then who pays the price? Who pays the price? The consumer ultimately pays the price, and the green vegetable industry goes south of the border where the workers are available. That is why, when we sat down to look at American agriculture 5 years ago, we knew we had to have a transitional tool. We knew we had to assure the stability of the existing workforce while we secured the border and while we made sure we got the hard-working illegal ones who hadn't broken laws right, and those who had broken laws, they leave the country. If you came in yesterday or if you came in last June or if you came in the year before, you don't qualify for this. You had to have been here several years already--3 years. You have to prove that. You have to go through a background check. All of that is part of what we do. Is it different from the other H-plus programs? Yes, it is, a little bit, because agriculture is different. It is the threshold work that the Senator from Georgia talks about. It is where the foreign immigrant enters the country to work. They gain their experience there, oftentimes before they move on or if they were to qualify for other programs that are within this bill. My effort is to secure and to stabilize. It is not to throw out the blue card. It is my opinion that the Chambliss amendment guts the agricultural provision by destroying the transitional tool we call the blue card, and I believe that is fundamentally important to creating stability to America's agricultural workforce.