Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing this issue before the Senate. Yesterday the Senator from Nevada and I were in attendance at a hearing of the Armed Services Committee chaired by Senator Warner, with the Secretary of the Army, the Chief of the National Guard, the lieutenant general of the Army, and the Chief of the Border Patrol. What we saw was the coming together of a complete unit, a complete unit to secure our border and build an orderly process on the border. What the Senator from Nevada speaks to tonight is a reality that is very doable, and it is done in the normal activity of the summer training of our Guard. The Senator knows that we are not putting Guardsmen out on the front lines. They will facilitate those of the Border Patrol who are the frontline officers in this defensive securing mechanism that we will call the southwestern border of our country. So I thank the Senator for bringing this to the floor. It is critical and important. It fits well into what our President has proposed, responsibly so, for our country.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the hour is late. I know those at the desk, including the Chair, would like to dim the lights and say good evening. I will do that in just a few moments. We are going to have an opportunity to debate in detail what the Senator from Georgia has put before the Senate as it relates to a wage rate for agricultural workers that is embodied within the bill that is before us in comprehensive immigration reform. I must tell you that after having worked on the agriculture portion of this bill for nearly 5 years, and as a farmer and rancher, I totally agree with the Senator from Georgia, that those who were under the H-2A program and those who weren't were very different, and those who weren't were placing the farmer-producer who had adhered to the H-2A program at a true competitive disadvantage because of the adverse effect wage rate that the Senator spoke to. As we work to reform and change the character of the H-2A program, and for those Senators who aren't quite aware of that--that is the agricultural portion--we recognize that the adverse affect wage was out of step. It was skewed in large part by comparative and competitive disadvantaged margins that the Senator speaks to. The Senator has proposed moving to a prevailing wage, which, in my opinion, is in itself a minimum wage. Let me make those points. What the Senator from Georgia has failed to suggest is after an examination of the adverse effect wage rate and recognizing the problems, we changed it dramatically. We said let's freeze it at the 2003 level, January 1, which is actually the 2002 level, and keep it flat for 3 years while we adjust the agricultural workplace into a true prevailing wage. That is what the bill does. Let me show you what I believe the effects are. I will go into those in more detail on Monday because they are significant, and in many instances what the bill does for American agriculture is better than what the Senator from Georgia is proposing. It causes us to focus on what is appropriate and right in bringing about equity and balance in the agricultural workforce and in that wage rate. In 2006, the adverse effect wage rate was $8.63 an hour. This bill drops it to $8.19. In 2010, $10.25 and drops it to $9.06, and many examples on a State-by-State basis drop it more than that. But more than dropping the wage rate down and bringing equity in it, we bring equity in a sense by going in and looking at it and making sure that we effectively change the indices, immediately upon the enactment of the agriculture portion known as AgJOBS of this bill. In California, the wage rate will drop by 11 percent; in New Hampshire, 13 percent; South Carolina, 13 percent; Montana, 12 percent; Pennsylvania, 16 percent. I wish the Senator would check his numbers. The numbers he talks about tonight are not prevailing wage. That is minimum wage. And minimum wage will not stand. That is something we are all going to have to look at as we focus on the Chambliss amendment to see if those numbers are truly accurate. I am not in any way suggesting the Senator is wrong, but I am suggesting those who did the research used the Nation's lowest indices possible. I challenge those numbers. It is appropriate to do so. By 2016, the average farm wage is projected to be $12.81 but the projected adverse effect wage is $10 or down 17.5 percent below the average farm wage if we look at those kinds of indices. It is important we understand we are proposing significant changes in the wage rate and in the market. The Senator is suggesting, and appropriately so, embodied within adverse effected wage were a variety of other things that agricultural producers had to supply, in some instances, housing, or housing certificates, and other types of amenities at the workplace. That will still happen, whether it is a transitional blue card employment force or an H2-A force because, clearly, once we have transitioned the modified and reformed H2-A program embodied within the bill before the Senate, will be the effective guest worker law portion of it dealing specifically with agriculture. Agriculture is a different workforce. And it is a different wage scale. We know that. Had the Senator embodied within it the advantage of piecework, the adverse effect wage rate does that. Do you know some workers who are getting $7 an hour, if they work piecework, get $12 an hour? It is their advantage to do is. There is a higher level of productivity when you bring them all to a common denominator that goes away. There are a variety of things that are critically important to look at. I do not mean to suggest in any way that the numbers offered were offered in an untruthful way but the numbers that were provided to the offeror are the lowest common denominator at a minimum wage rate and not the 50th medium talked about by the Department of Labor in their analysis and in the establishment of an appropriate wage rate that would be a true prevailing wage rate. I want a prevailing wage rate. That is what the bill proposes, a transitional pattern of time, a 3-year pattern of time with a frozen adverse effect wage rate, to move us to prevailing. The Farm Bureau asserts that the prevailing crop wage in Ohio ranges from $5.85 to $7.13 an hour. They compare this to the wage rate of $8.38 per hour which would apply during the AgJOBS wage freeze. Those are the kind of numbers that were being offered this evening. However, the medium hourly wage, which would be the prevailing wage under the amendment before the Senate, was $8.57 for crop workers in Ohio in the data sourced by the Farm Bureau. I am still digging into the numbers because I cannot quite understand it. There is a disparity that is troublesome if we are to arrive at a fair, responsible, and accurate measurement to establish an effective prevailing wage that is fair to the worker, but more importantly, and as importantly, fair to the producer so that we get out of this competitive disadvantage the Senator from Georgia has recognized and sees as critically important. In other words, if this data source represented agriculture prevailing wage, which in my opinion it does not, the prevailing crop rates I mentioned for Ohio would be at least 19 cents an hour higher than the AgJOBS minimum wage even in 2006 before we tamp it down in the law. The projected Ohio prevailing crop wage in 2010, based on the data source, would be $10.33 per hour compared to the AgJOBS minimum wage of $9.29. In all sincerity, I offer to the Senator from Georgia a time for us to look at numbers and do some comparisons. There is a disparity. I know what the bill does because the bill is accurately and effectively represented in these charts because we knew what the effected adverse wage was going to be, and there is a very clear projection line. What we do not know are the indices given and provided as it relates to the Chambliss amendment. I will spend the weekend looking at it and looking at those numbers. They do concern me. It is important we get it right, not that we want to treat anyone in a disadvantaged way, but what we do has to be accurate, it has to create stability, it has to take away the competitive disadvantage the Senator from Georgia is talking about, that is real today in this disparity between those H-2A workers and, if you will, the undocumented workers out there in the American workforce that the provision of the bill that deals with agriculture attempts to get its arms around and legalize through the blue card transition period the Senator and I have spoken to. It is a very important part of the bill. Both the Senator from Georgia and I have been concerned for some time and have compared numbers about an American agricultural work base built on a faulty employment base. You cannot be working 75 percent undocumented workers and be wholly dependent upon them to bring the perishable crop to the market and then have them swept out from under you. Yet we also know that when there is 1.2 to 1.5 million people in the American agricultural workforce that are foreign nationals, yet annually, the H-2A as a program only effectively identifies 42,000 to 45,000, something was and is dramatically wrong. That is why the Senator is here with his amendment. That is why I am here with a major reform package within the bill. We both agree that the wage part of this is skewed. That is why we rolled it back dramatically and we are proposing establishing a prevailing wage. And he has proposed a prevailing wage. We have to get the numbers right. I disagree with his numbers. It is important that in the effort to bring stability and equity we get them right. I hope the Senate would get the Chambliss amendment, stay with the freeze that is actually the 2002 wage scale for 3 years, while we get the numbers right as it relates to the effective establishment of a prevailing wage. In the end, I would argue that during that period of time we have substantially lessened the competitive disadvantage and improved the overall wage base for agricultural workers in a sense of equity and balance. We will be back to this amendment, I understand, Monday afternoon to debate it before a vote on Monday evening at 5:30. It is a challenge for all of us. More than one Senator over the course of the last week has said this is a very complicated bill. And the area that Senator Chambliss and I have ventured into is a very complicated portion of the bill. I know what the bill does because I helped write it and spent a good number of years attempting to negotiate it. I am yet to clearly understand what I believe the Senator from Georgia is attempting to do as to the accuracy of his numbers and what they would mean on a State- by-State basis based on the indices he proposes to be used if this were to become law. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I do have to stand in opposition to the Vitter amendment and hope my colleagues will oppose it. We are all finding out that what we are attempting to do is phenomenally complicated, with all the different kinds of categories of work status and reality that we as the Senate and the American people are awakening to. There is one reality. We have a lot of undocumented foreign nationals in our country. By definition, they are illegal. Some--and many--have been here 5 and 6 years or more or less. They are law abiding. They are hard working. They have not violated the laws, other than they walked across the border. And they did violate a law when they did that. Earned adjustment is an attempt to bring some reality to this by saying, if you have been here and you worked a while, then you can stay and work: You will pay a fine, you will have a background check, but we will provide you with a legal status to stay and to work--not citizenship. If you want citizenship, you go to the back of the line and you qualify. But we are talking about a legal work status. Some call that amnesty. I call it earned adjustment because we are beginning to find out who is here, why they are here. There is a background check. Are they legal in the sense, did they violate laws, other than walking across the border? And I do not mean to take that lightly. The Vitter amendment wipes out all of that. It wipes out the work of the committee. It wipes out how you deal with 10 million undocumented people in our country in a systematic, legal, and responsible fashion. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Vitter amendment. There may be a better idea than earned adjustment. But after having worked on this issue for 5 years and attempting to work with all of the interest groups to bring about some equity, stability of workforce--assuring that those who are out in the field now working or in our processing plants working can stay and work and keep our economy moving--I ask my colleagues to oppose the Vitter amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 2821, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006. Today, President Bush signed into law H.R. 4297, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, and this afternoon, I am making good on a promise I made on the Senate floor last week--to repeal the expanded withholding tax contained in H.R. 4297 to ensure that the bill does what its title claims, that is, prevents tax Increases. Americans have been asking for tax relief. Congress answered this call, in part, when it passed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. The lower taxes on capital gains and dividends--and the higher alternative minimum tax exemption amounts-- contained in H.R. 4297 will assist small businesses, encourage the kind of investment that creates jobs and makes our economy grow, and ensure fairer tax treatment for middle-income families who would otherwise be left footing the bill for a tax intended for the wealthy. Alongside these tax relief provisions, however, conferees inserted a sweeping new withholding requirement that will raise taxes by nearly $7 billion. This bill seems to have a history of that. When the original tax reconciliation bill came before the Senate, it contained a windfall profits tax provision that would have imposed an additional $4.923 billion tax on the energy industry. I voted against it because the bill that was supposed to provide tax relief actually raised taxes. Although the conferees stripped this provision in conference, they replaced it with an even bigger tax hike--section 511's expanded withholding requirement. Section 511 of H.R. 4297 imposes a new mandatory 3 percent withholding requirement on all payments for goods and services made to Federal, State, and local contractors. The provision, which is the largest revenue raiser in the bill, represents a significant shift in U.S. tax policy. Withholding has not always been around. Despite predominant public opposition, Congress enacted mandatory withholding on Federal income tax in 1943 in order to fund World War II. As a result, tax collections jumped from $7.3 billion in 1939 to $43 billion in 1945. That is an increase of $35.7 billion in just 4 years. In congressional hearings on the issue, Congressmen spoke candidly of the revenues that needed to be ``fried out of the taxpayers.'' There was no doubt in the minds of lawmakers that the result of withholding would be an increase in the tax burden on the public. Congress sought to expand withholding to dividends and interest in 1982, and public opposition was so profound that it was repealed 1 year later. Now, proponents of section 511's expanded withholding requirement say that it is necessary to close a ``tax loophole'' that allows taxpayers to avoid their tax obligations. There is no such ``loophole''--the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, has simply failed to do its job of collecting. Information-reporting requirements are already in place to assist the IRS in its collection duties. Government entities are required to make an information return, reporting payments to corporations as well as individuals. Moreover, every head of every Federal executive agency that enters into contracts must file an information return reporting the contractor's name, address, date of contract action, amount to be paid to the contractor, and other information. Expanding withholding would now not only have the Federal Government spend taxpayers' dollars, but it would make taxpayers bear the burden and costs of collecting them, too. The costs of section 511 are high--so high, in fact, that the Congressional Budget Office said that the provision constitutes an unfunded mandate on the State and local governments, exceeding the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The provision will also cause the cost of doing business to go up. A 3- percent withholding on multibillion dollar contracts--for as long as 15 months, held interest-free--will affect cash flows, investment, and cause businesses to raise prices in order to make up for losses, thereby putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage. Consider the Federal contract totals for Idaho and California alone. In fiscal year 2004, Idaho's nondefense contracts totaled $1.1 billion, and in fiscal year 2005, the State's defense contracts added up to $154 million. In fiscal year 2004, California's nondefense contracts totaled $9.4 billion, and in fiscal year 2005, the State had $30.9 billion in defense contracts. The bill that I am introducing today, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006, will repeal the $7 billion withholding tax contained in H.R. 4297. Tax relief should not be coupled with tax increases, and I will continue to work to give more meaning to the phrase in the bill's title, ``Tax Increase Prevention.'' This bill is a first step. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 2821, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006. Today, President Bush signed into law H.R. 4297, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, and this afternoon, I am making good on a promise I made on the Senate floor last week--to repeal the expanded withholding tax contained in H.R. 4297 to ensure that the bill does what its title claims, that is, prevents tax Increases. Americans have been asking for tax relief. Congress answered this call, in part, when it passed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. The lower taxes on capital gains and dividends--and the higher alternative minimum tax exemption amounts-- contained in H.R. 4297 will assist small businesses, encourage the kind of investment that creates jobs and makes our economy grow, and ensure fairer tax treatment for middle-income families who would otherwise be left footing the bill for a tax intended for the wealthy. Alongside these tax relief provisions, however, conferees inserted a sweeping new withholding requirement that will raise taxes by nearly $7 billion. This bill seems to have a history of that. When the original tax reconciliation bill came before the Senate, it contained a windfall profits tax provision that would have imposed an additional $4.923 billion tax on the energy industry. I voted against it because the bill that was supposed to provide tax relief actually raised taxes. Although the conferees stripped this provision in conference, they replaced it with an even bigger tax hike--section 511's expanded withholding requirement. Section 511 of H.R. 4297 imposes a new mandatory 3 percent withholding requirement on all payments for goods and services made to Federal, State, and local contractors. The provision, which is the largest revenue raiser in the bill, represents a significant shift in U.S. tax policy. Withholding has not always been around. Despite predominant public opposition, Congress enacted mandatory withholding on Federal income tax in 1943 in order to fund World War II. As a result, tax collections jumped from $7.3 billion in 1939 to $43 billion in 1945. That is an increase of $35.7 billion in just 4 years. In congressional hearings on the issue, Congressmen spoke candidly of the revenues that needed to be ``fried out of the taxpayers.'' There was no doubt in the minds of lawmakers that the result of withholding would be an increase in the tax burden on the public. Congress sought to expand withholding to dividends and interest in 1982, and public opposition was so profound that it was repealed 1 year later. Now, proponents of section 511's expanded withholding requirement say that it is necessary to close a ``tax loophole'' that allows taxpayers to avoid their tax obligations. There is no such ``loophole''--the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, has simply failed to do its job of collecting. Information-reporting requirements are already in place to assist the IRS in its collection duties. Government entities are required to make an information return, reporting payments to corporations as well as individuals. Moreover, every head of every Federal executive agency that enters into contracts must file an information return reporting the contractor's name, address, date of contract action, amount to be paid to the contractor, and other information. Expanding withholding would now not only have the Federal Government spend taxpayers' dollars, but it would make taxpayers bear the burden and costs of collecting them, too. The costs of section 511 are high--so high, in fact, that the Congressional Budget Office said that the provision constitutes an unfunded mandate on the State and local governments, exceeding the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The provision will also cause the cost of doing business to go up. A 3- percent withholding on multibillion dollar contracts--for as long as 15 months, held interest-free--will affect cash flows, investment, and cause businesses to raise prices in order to make up for losses, thereby putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage. Consider the Federal contract totals for Idaho and California alone. In fiscal year 2004, Idaho's nondefense contracts totaled $1.1 billion, and in fiscal year 2005, the State's defense contracts added up to $154 million. In fiscal year 2004, California's nondefense contracts totaled $9.4 billion, and in fiscal year 2005, the State had $30.9 billion in defense contracts. The bill that I am introducing today, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006, will repeal the $7 billion withholding tax contained in H.R. 4297. Tax relief should not be coupled with tax increases, and I will continue to work to give more meaning to the phrase in the bill's title, ``Tax Increase Prevention.'' This bill is a first step. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that S. 2788, a bill to direct the exchange of certain land in Grand, San Juan and Uintah Counties, Utah, and for other purposes has been added to the agenda of the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests scheduled for Wednesday, May 24, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366. This will replace S. 1135 which has been removed from the agenda. 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, Dick Bouts, or Sara Zecher.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield only for a moment?

Mr. CRAIG. It is important to recognize that we are getting the Smith from California, and we are asking that we get a Smith from Idaho.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we resumed yesterday what I think most of us believe is a historic debate in consideration of comprehensive immigration reform. This body debated immigration reform and brought forth a resolution in 1986. We did it once again in 1996. And here it is, 2006, and we are back, frustrated in some ways, angered in others, that there may be as many as 12 million illegal immigrants in our country, illegal foreign nationals who came in a relatively uncontrolled or unenforced fashion. Last night I heard, and America heard, our President deliver what I believe was one of the most comprehensive approaches toward dealing with this issue. First and foremost, he recognized what the Congress did not recognize in 1986, nor did we recognize it in 1996. No matter how comprehensive our reform is, it will not work, unless this Nation controls and secures its borders and, therefore, devises programs that allow a reasonable number of foreign nationals to come into our economy on an annual basis to help us grow and help us continue to be the great immigrant Nation we are. Then the President, beyond his approach toward securing the border, talked about a variety of other approaches. Let me talk only about border security. A good number of us began to work with the White House several months ago, and our message was quite simple. We didn't believe the Congress could fashion comprehensive immigration reform, that the politics of the day were too contentious, unless we had convinced the American people, first and foremost, that primarily our southern border would become more secure, that the flood of humanity coming across it on an hourly basis was stopped, and that the comprehensive bill that would then be fashioned would recognize the needs of our economy and bring workers to our economy in a reasonable fashion. The President gets it. His speech last night said it. While the work the Judiciary Committee and the Senate have done do beef up border control, you don't get there overnight. You don't invest billions of dollars and stand up a virtual wall, and a real wall in some places, in a 24-hour period. The President, understanding that, is now engaging the four border States along our southwestern border, with the complement of the National Guard, not to enforce but to facilitate the Border Patrol, which is legally trained and deputized to do what is necessary in the area of border enforcement. Securing our southwestern border is critical. One AP reporter asked me last night: Isn't this political? I said: It is not political at all. The President simply gets it. If this Senate doesn't get it, shame on us. We can't write a bill in any fashion, Democratic or Republican, that works unless our borders are secure, and the law plays against the border in allowing an orderly approach through that border on a daily and an annual basis. Yes, our economy needs immigrant workers. We will need several hundreds of thousands a year, if we expect our economy to continue to grow as it has, to prosper. But we want them to come to work. And those who might want to stay ought to get in line and apply for citizenship and do as all other Americans have done in the past who were born in a foreign country, who came here and became an American. They assimilated. They learned our culture; they learned our history; they learned to speak English; and we accepted them with open arms. It is the vitality of our country. We have always accepted an orderly amount of the world's humanity to become Americans. But we did it in a controlled and responsible way. That is what our President said last night. We ought to applaud him for an immediate approach to a problem while we work out the long-term approach. That debate is here today. That debate is here for the balance of the week, to build a comprehensive reform package that plays up against a secure border that our President proposed to us last night and that we should rush to help him implement for the sake of this country. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to see the tax reconciliation conference report before the Senate today. I commend the conferees' hard work and perseverance in reaching a compromise on this bill. I know it was no easy task. Americans have been asking for tax relief, and now is the time that we give it to them. Lower taxes on capital gains and dividends--and higher alternative minimum tax exemption amounts--will assist America's small businesses, encourage the kind of investment that creates jobs and makes our economy grow, and ensure fairer tax treatment for middle- income families who would otherwise be left footing the bill for a tax intended for the wealthy. These policies have a proven record of success. Since Republican pro- growth tax policies were enacted in 2003, the economy has grown at an unprecedented rate, over 5.3 million jobs have been created, tax revenues are surging, and household wealth is at an all time high. We must extend, not end, this trend and the conference report we have before us, in part, does that. When the original tax reconciliation bill came before the Senate, I voted against it. I did so because it contained a windfall profits tax provision which would have imposed an additional $4.923 billion tax on the energy industry alone. I voted ``no'' because the bill that was supposed to provide tax relief actually raised taxes. I was pleased to see and commend the conferees for stripping the windfall profits tax provision out of the bill. I am going to vote for this bill. The majority of it contains the kind of tax relief essential to creating jobs and growing our economy. But I stand before you today to register my opposition to the addition of an expanded withholding provision--a near $7 billion tax increase in a bill that claims in its title to prevent tax increases: The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. That title is misleading. The provision requires withholding on payments to any person-- including small businesses--providing goods and services to the Federal, State, and local governments. The rate of withholding is 3 percent on all payments, meaning that if contract payments were made quarter-annually, 12 percent of the total contract value--some undoubtedly in the hundreds of millions--would be withheld from the contractor, kept by the Government interest-free for up to 15 months. Proponents of this provision say it simply closes the ``tax gap'' and assists in collecting Federal taxes that are already owed. To say that the expansion of withholding requirements is anything other than a significant shift in U.S. tax policy is misleading. Withholding has not always been around. Federal income tax withholding came into being during World War II, as the need for increased tax collections arose. When Federal income tax withholding became mandatory in 1943, tax collections jumped from $7.3 billion in 1939 to a whopping $43 billion in 1945. That's an increase of $35.7 billion in 4 years. In congressional hearings on the issue, Congressmen spoke candidly of the revenues that needed to be ``fried out of the taxpayers.'' There was no doubt in the minds of lawmakers that the result of withholding would be an increase in the tax burden on the public. However, it was wartime and the proposal was sold as a patriotic one. What is our reason now? Some say it is to improve compliance by ``closing a tax loophole'' that allows some taxpayers to avoid their tax obligations. There is no such ``loophole''--the IRS has simply failed to do its job of collecting and aims to shift this responsibility elsewhere. Information reporting requirements are already in place to assist the IRS in its collection duties. Government entities are specifically required to make an information return, reporting payments to corporations as well as individuals. Moreover, every head of every Federal executive agency that enters into contracts must file an information return reporting the contractor's name, address, date of contract action, amount to be paid to the contractor, and other information. Expanding withholding would now not only have the Federal Government spend taxpayers' dollars, but it would make taxpayers bear the burden and costs of collecting them too. And the cost of this provision is high--nearly $7 billion over 10 years. This offset is not without strings, and it is not free. As portions of individuals and small businesses' income are withheld for as long as 15 months, cash flows will drop and opportunities to invest will go down. These expenses will result in a higher cost of business. Withholding is the ultimate hidden tax. When taxpayers no longer see the money that is withheld from their paychecks, the cost of government becomes obscured. And with Government spending what it is right now, transparency is what we need. This is not the last time you will be hearing about this from me or the taxpayers. This provision will not simply go by unnoticed. In fact, the same type of withholding was tried on dividends and interest in 1982. Public opposition was so profound that it was repealed less than 1 year later. Although I will vote today to extend essential tax relief, I will work to do the same before this tax increase takes effect in 2011. I will work to give more meaning to the phrase in the bill's title: ``Tax Increase Prevention.''

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, May 24th, 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. 1135, to authorize the exchange of certain land in Grand and Uintah Counties, Utah, and for other purposes; S. 2466, to authorize and direct the exchange and conveyance of certain National Forest land and other land in southeast Arizona; and S. 2567, to maintain the rural heritage of the Eastern Sierra and enhance the region's tourism economy by designating certain public lands as wilderness and certain rivers as wild and scenic rivers in the State of California, 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 202-2247545, or Sara Zecher 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the leader for that time. I will conclude by simply saying 115 billion barrels of oil are denied because somebody--and it was over here--said no, and now we enter the ``no zone.'' Americans do not believe it. Americans are going to demand a change, and we ought to be able to deliver. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come on the heels of the minority leader speaking about or at least attempting to define what he and his party believe in. I watched him struggle this morning to try to shape what they are versus what we are, and that is really what we heard discussed a few moments ago. But he kept going back to the issue of high energy costs and the soccer moms and their inability to fill their gas tanks today. So I am going to focus on that part of what he struggled to define this morning and speak to the realities that are out there and what has transpired over the last several decades as it relates to the inability of this country to produce energy and why that inability exists. A couple of weeks ago, I came to the Senate floor to inform this Senate and awaken America to the reality that just 50 miles off the coast of Florida, China is drilling for oil--Not the United States but China. And the reason China is drilling for oil is that we have prohibited our own companies from the opportunity to drill in the northern Cuban zone, so that Cuba is now leasing out to other countries in the world except the United States. Then I watched a rush to judgment on the other side as there was a flurry to say not only do we have to stop Cuba, we dare not let America, American companies, experts in deepwater drilling, experts in environmental soundness, ever drill in that region. Today I wish to expand on that idea. I wish to talk about why America is in trouble today with energy and why that soccer mom is paying more at the gas pump today than she ever has. The answer is really right here. It happened right here in the Senate over the last several decades, starting in 1950. From the 1800s to 1950, we were energy independent. We were the great producer of oil. But as folks came home from World War II and as our economy began to expand, we began to use more oil. Then, starting in the 1960s and 1970s, we began to say about oil: We need it, but we can't drill here and we can't drill there and we will drill elsewhere. Here is our problem today, so clearly defined in a supply and demand environment in which we have become 60 percent dependent upon foreign countries to produce our energy for us. America now knows that. Two weeks ago, we watched the other side blame and blame again somebody, including this administration, for a failure to produce. But they failed to tell you what they had not done, had denied over the last two or three decades. I went to the White House during the Clinton years and asked President Clinton to work with us, to floor what we call marginal wells in west Texas and Oklahoma so they could continue to produce. Why? Because oil was below $18 a barrel and there was no economy there. They couldn't make money and they were shutting the wells in. We said: Let's floor it and keep them producing. We couldn't do it because of the politics of that Democratic administration. What happened? Those wells went off line. They were filled with concrete, and they stopped producing what would be a million barrels of oil a day into this market right now. So to the American consumer who is paying those high gas prices, you are lacking a million barrels a day into our markets by a Democratic administration that denied its happening. Darn it, that is a fact. That is reality. What transpired during that other time? Let's go on to the next chart that talks about our failure to get certain things happening. The Presiding Officer knows all about ANWR. He knows all about Alaska and Alaskan production. It was Bill Clinton who vetoed, a decade ago, the ANWR bill which would have put upwards of 10 billion barrels into the market at about a million barrels a day. Let's do the math now. We shut in a million barrels a day in Texas and Oklahoma because of the politics of that administration, and then they vetoed ANWR at 10 billion or a million a day. That is 2 million barrels a day to which they said no. So the answer to the minority leader as to why the soccer moms are paying the highest price ever today for gas is quite simple. It is because they said no. They said no to stripper wells, they said no to ANWR. Now let's talk about the rest of the story because what I am interested in is the reality of the ``no'' politics, the ``no'' production, the ``no'' refinement. That is the answer to our problem today. You saw it on the last chart, the chart of supply and demand and 60 percent dependency on foreign sources. We cannot even drill in our own hemisphere. Then let's go to this map. I call it the no zone. Why is it called the no zone? Because you can't drill here and you can't drill here and you won't drill here and you can't drill here. Why? American politics today. It is the no-drill zone. If we could drill in the no-drill zone, it is possible that we could find, through U.S. geological surveys already under way, 115 billion barrels of oil and a phenomenal amount of gas. But the answer is no. Who said no? They said no. Republicans didn't say no. Let me talk about that for just a moment. President Bush comes to town. We meet over here in the leader's office. He says: My first priority is to allow the Vice President to assemble a group of the experts and put together a national energy policy. We have to get this country back into production. He said that as his first initiative. Five years later, after they kept saying no, last August we got a bill. We are beginning to produce. But this is still all ``no.'' Mr. President, 115 billion barrels are outside the reach of the American consumer today, even though our technology is the best in the world and even though, after the worst natural disaster ever, we proved ourselves out in the gulf. In this little clean area right over here where we have not said no--at least the States of Texas and Louisiana didn't say no--we found out that wells went off line, rigs got blown off their foundations, but no oil was spilled. Why? Because of the phenomenal technology today and because of environmental rules and regulations that we have asked for and demanded compliance and received it from the major oil companies that drill in deepwater and the Outer Continental Shelf. The reason I bring these issues today is quite simple: We have to quit saying no. The other side can demogog and they can try to blame, but the reality is here. The facts are here. Let's run down the rest of the chart. We have said no to ANWR, no to OCS, no to 181 leasing, no drilling in the northern Cuba zone--at least American companies--while China drills in our backyard. American consumers need to know that the answer to their problem is not no. It is, yes, we can produce and, yes, we ought to produce and, yes, we ought to be energy independent and, yes, it ought to happen in our hemisphere, and, yes, we ought to be less dependent on foreign oil. If we put all of those things together, America can be independent today. But you are not independent by saying no. And the answer has been no, no, no, no. That is why we ought to talk about the ``no zone'' and the naysayers and the minority who have said no for so long. Reality is at hand. The American consumer is being squeezed at the gas pump like never before, and the answer still remains no. Americans are demanding that this be resolved. We are rushing to new production in all kinds of alternatives, but you do not get away by denying the obvious.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I seek floor recognition to introduce legislation to create a series of Amputation and Prosthetic Rehabilitation Centers in the Department of Veterans Affairs. As many of you are aware, VA already operates numerous specialty care centers for the treatment of veterans with spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment. However, at this moment, VA does not operate any similar centers of care for the treatment of veterans with amputations. I do not mean to suggest that VA does not provide excellent care and services to those veterans who have unfortunately lost a limb or part of limb. But, there's always room for improvement in the care VA delivers and, just as importantly, there is room for improvement in the prosthetic services and devices that help those men and women with their physical restoration. Many of us have spoken personally with service members who are recuperating from injuries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or Bethesda Naval Hospital. Today's extraordinary battlefield medicine is bringing back to our shores service members from Iraq and Afghanistan who would never have lived through their injuries in previous wars. Thanks to the best health care facilities the military has to offer and the wonders of modern medicine, these brave Americans will eventually leave the hospital. Then, most will start the difficult process of reintegrating into civilian life. For those whose injuries resulted in an amputation, that process is just a little more difficult. My hope with this bill is that these centers will be the lynchpin of a fully integrated Prosthetic Service Network; similar to those I mentioned at the outset of my remarks for the care of spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and blindness. They would be fully responsible for the system-wide coordination of all of the Physical and Occupational Therapy and Prosthetics care provided to this new generation of severely wounded veterans. In addition, they will provide a new level of service to those who have long lived with amputations caused during previous wars or conflicts. Further, it is my hope and expectation that these centers will house and drive much of the prosthetic and amputee related research and development projects conducted by VA. I believe that by gathering under one roof specialists, who have dedicated their medical practice to caring for and rehabilitating those who have lost limbs, we will drive the marketplace of ideas and develop the best treatment in the country. There is no limit to what modern technology, American ingenuity, and a great cause can accomplish. Just the other day, my Committee held a hearing on VA's research program. At that meeting, I had the opportunity to speak with a VA clinician who, along with many of his colleagues, has created a proto- type prosthetic for someone who had lost part of a hand, but still had wrist control. In just a few moments time, I was able to wire the equipment to my own arm and with a little practice pick up a glass of water, hold it in the prosthetic hand, and then return it to the table and remove the hand from it without spilling a drop. It was nothing short of amazing. It was also a small glimpse of where we can go. Of course, discoveries and inventions, like that hand, do not just remain in the VA vacuum. Once created, tested and approved, the R&D will leave the VA world and almost immediately benefit the civilian population of amputees. By combining the resources of our government and the needs of our veterans, we can improve the American medical system for all of our citizens. With the right technology, the best health care services, and a little personal drive, many of our amputees will return to active lives. They will play tennis, basketball, go kayaking, and even climb mountains. And while I am not suggesting that these centers will cause all of that to happen, I believe they will create the environment in which those things can happen. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill now. And I hope to report it out of my committee and bring it to the floor for a vote later this summer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I seek floor recognition to introduce legislation to create a series of Amputation and Prosthetic Rehabilitation Centers in the Department of Veterans Affairs. As many of you are aware, VA already operates numerous specialty care centers for the treatment of veterans with spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment. However, at this moment, VA does not operate any similar centers of care for the treatment of veterans with amputations. I do not mean to suggest that VA does not provide excellent care and services to those veterans who have unfortunately lost a limb or part of limb. But, there's always room for improvement in the care VA delivers and, just as importantly, there is room for improvement in the prosthetic services and devices that help those men and women with their physical restoration. Many of us have spoken personally with service members who are recuperating from injuries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or Bethesda Naval Hospital. Today's extraordinary battlefield medicine is bringing back to our shores service members from Iraq and Afghanistan who would never have lived through their injuries in previous wars. Thanks to the best health care facilities the military has to offer and the wonders of modern medicine, these brave Americans will eventually leave the hospital. Then, most will start the difficult process of reintegrating into civilian life. For those whose injuries resulted in an amputation, that process is just a little more difficult. My hope with this bill is that these centers will be the lynchpin of a fully integrated Prosthetic Service Network; similar to those I mentioned at the outset of my remarks for the care of spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and blindness. They would be fully responsible for the system-wide coordination of all of the Physical and Occupational Therapy and Prosthetics care provided to this new generation of severely wounded veterans. In addition, they will provide a new level of service to those who have long lived with amputations caused during previous wars or conflicts. Further, it is my hope and expectation that these centers will house and drive much of the prosthetic and amputee related research and development projects conducted by VA. I believe that by gathering under one roof specialists, who have dedicated their medical practice to caring for and rehabilitating those who have lost limbs, we will drive the marketplace of ideas and develop the best treatment in the country. There is no limit to what modern technology, American ingenuity, and a great cause can accomplish. Just the other day, my Committee held a hearing on VA's research program. At that meeting, I had the opportunity to speak with a VA clinician who, along with many of his colleagues, has created a proto- type prosthetic for someone who had lost part of a hand, but still had wrist control. In just a few moments time, I was able to wire the equipment to my own arm and with a little practice pick up a glass of water, hold it in the prosthetic hand, and then return it to the table and remove the hand from it without spilling a drop. It was nothing short of amazing. It was also a small glimpse of where we can go. Of course, discoveries and inventions, like that hand, do not just remain in the VA vacuum. Once created, tested and approved, the R&D will leave the VA world and almost immediately benefit the civilian population of amputees. By combining the resources of our government and the needs of our veterans, we can improve the American medical system for all of our citizens. With the right technology, the best health care services, and a little personal drive, many of our amputees will return to active lives. They will play tennis, basketball, go kayaking, and even climb mountains. And while I am not suggesting that these centers will cause all of that to happen, I believe they will create the environment in which those things can happen. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill now. And I hope to report it out of my committee and bring it to the floor for a vote later this summer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska for her dedication and the Chair's dedication to the development of ANWAR. We can all look back at the time when this Congress actually passed it and it was vetoed by President Clinton. If that had not happened, today ANWR would be producing and would be feeding at least a million barrels a day of oil into the system, and the refineries at Anacortes, WA, would be operating at full capacity. My guess is that gas would not be $3 at the pump, and we would be in a much stronger position worldwide today if we were allowed to produce. It is a supply-and-demand issue. We all know that. We are going to create greater transparency in those markets so that the American people can rest assured that there is no gouging. We, the same, want to understand that. But I think that when that is understood, if that is what we find, then the world begins to really look at why $3, why $3.10, why $4? Why is demand outstripping supply, and all of those types of things? It is so darned important.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, congressional recesses are not times during which Senators and Congressmen do nothing. In fact, recess is a critical time for citizen legislators like ourselves. Recess is an opportunity for many of us to go home and live for a little while under the laws that we have passed. We talk with our neighbors. We visit local restaurants, grocery stores, and spend a lot of time with constituents all across our states. We hear what the people think about our work. I must say that while I was in Idaho over the Easter recess, the feedback I got on spending by this Congress was not good. We have before us another emergency supplemental funding bill. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has called these emergency funding bills ``shadow budgets.'' I agree with his view. We are simply funding outside of the regular budget process the known costs of our war on terror. That has to end. In the case of hurricane relief, I understand the need to provide emergency funding as quickly as possible, and I know we cannot always budget exactly for an emergency. However, I am increasingly frustrated with this Congress's refusal to make any adjustments to other spending priorities to account for the need to rebuild the gulf coast. We are now into our fourth emergency supplemental in less than a year for the rebuilding efforts along the gulf coast. It is time that we start paying for some of this spending. Before I left for the recess, I voted in favor of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that was before the Appropriations Committee. I cast a ``yes'' vote with some hesitation, in light of the concerns I have just mentioned. The bill I voted for would have provided $96 billion in emergency spending, mainly for our efforts in the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq and the continued reconstruction of the badly damaged gulf coast region. The President submitted a request to Congress for $92.2 billion. Yet I was voting to add $4 billion to the amount requested by the President. But I voted yes because I recognize that not all wisdom is found at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Congress has a responsibility to scrutinize and improve upon the administration's request. And we certainly have the right and the responsibility to add or subtract from that request based on needs that we identify. I believe the bill I voted for in committee did just that. Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd held hearings on the administration's request. They identified shortcomings and they changed the bill to address those needs. So I supported $96 billion as the level of funding needed to address urgent needs across this country related to our war on terror and our disaster recovery efforts. Unfortunately, a series of amendments adopted by voice vote by the committee after I left have pushed the cost of the legislation now before us to over $106 billion. That is $14 billion above what the administration requested and $10 billion above what Chairman Cochran and ranking member Byrd recommended to all of us. Every Member of this institution has to draw the line and decide how much is too much. In my mind, and in the minds of many Idahoans, this level of funding is simply too high. In fact, last week I joined with 34 of my Senate colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush saying we will vote to support his veto if the price tag of this bill does not come down. Enough is enough, and I am proud to stand with my colleagues and say so. The people of Idaho are honest, hard-working Americans who will continue to staunchly support our military and compassionately lend a helping hand to our fellow citizens on the gulf coast. That message has been loud and clear to me over this and other congressional recesses. However, when Congress tries to take advantage of their patriotism and generosity, the people of Idaho deserve to know that their Senator will stand up and say no. I believe that this bill is irresponsible, and that is why I am standing up and saying no. I want to be clear so that all of my colleagues and my constituents understand my position and why I am voicing my frustration with this bill. My frustration is not about supporting our military. I support our military and I am committed to providing them with the tools they need. My frustration is not about supporting recovery efforts in the gulf coast. I am committed to helping the people in that region rebuild and move on with their lives. My frustration is with the Senate spending billions upon billions of dollars in such an irresponsible manner. The people of Idaho have charged me with being a good steward of their taxpayer dollars, and they expect me to work hard and make sure those dollars are being spent wisely. This bill does not do that. We can meet the needs of our military, the gulf coast, and other national priorities in a fiscally responsible manner. We have to be willing to make tough decisions and tighten our belts. Together, we can get spending under control and regain the confidence of the American taxpayers. Mr. President, I also wish to talk a little bit about the budget as it relates to where we are on the supplemental, along with this important issue of energy because, when I was home over the recess, as most of us were, the public was talking about a lot of issues. They were talking about energy, although it hadn't spiked the way it is spiking now. But they were also talking about deficits and responsible spending on the part of Government and making sure we do it right. And it is tremendously important that we do. The supplemental is too big at this moment. The President has sent us a message, as he should have--and I support that message--that we have emergencies, and we ought to address emergencies. But we ought not put on emergency budgets those kinds of expenditures that could well be utilized and brought into the appropriate budget. I have said to our chairman--and I respect his work, and I am on the Appropriations Committee--that we have to bring this supplemental down a bit and get our deficits under control. We have a war, we have Katrina, we have a national disaster beyond anything we have ever faced. Americans understand belt-tightening. They also understand sharing. This is about belt-tightening; it is about sharing. It is not about funding every idea that comes along, as worthy as it might be, against making sure that we get Louisiana and we get Mississippi responsibly financed in a redeveloping, restructuring mode--not excessively--and that we make sure our men and women in Iraq are appropriately funded. Those are the critical issues. My time is limited, but I have said to our chairman and I say it again: It is important we understand that the $92 billion to $96 billion range is where we have to get this supplemental, and I am going to work hard with the chairman to do it, to do it appropriately, to be selective in that which we fund but to be responsible in that which we send to the President in our work with the House to assure that we have the emergencies funded. Supplemental emergency funding ought not be a shadow budget. Here we are now in our fourth emergency supplemental within a budget cycle. I don't think our budget system works very well if we can't do better than that and argue that everything is an emergency and, therefore, somehow it doesn't fit under the caps. That is not the way our public and our taxpayers who finance this big government of ours want us to operate. Somehow we have to get that under control.

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, May 10, 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. 906, to promote wildland firefighter safety; S. 2003, to make permanent the authorization for watershed restoration and enhancement agreements; H.R. 585, to require Federal land managers to support, and to communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with, designated gateway communities, to improve the ability of gateway communities to participate in Federal land management planning conducted by the Forest Service and agencies of the Department of the Interior, and to respond to the impacts of the public use of the Federal lands administered by these agencies, and for other purposes; and H.R. 3981, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out certain land exchnges involving small parcels of National Forest System land in the Tahoe National Forest in the State of California, 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 or Sara Zecher 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on legislation that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, and I are introducing. This bill will provide veterans with the right to hire counsel to represent them in proceedings before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and will help ensure that all who represent veterans are held to the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct. As President Abraham Lincoln eloquently expressed nearly 150 years ago, this Nation has an obligation ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.'' In keeping with that charge, the Federal Government provides a wide array of benefits to veterans and their dependents, through an administrative system that is intended to be informal, claimant-friendly, and non-adversarial. During recent years, however, veterans' organizations, VA, and others have observed that this system has become increasingly complex. Enhanced legal requirements and layers of procedural steps intended to protect the rights of veterans have increased both the complexity of the system and how long it takes to process a claim. At the same time, with the Nation at war and servicemembers deployed around the world, the disability claims filed by returning veterans have become more complex. Many of these claims are based on disabilities caused by environmental exposures, traumatic brain injuries, psychological trauma, severe combat wounds, and other highly complex medical conditions, which by their nature may entail complex questions of causality or intricate factual or legal analyses. Despite the increasing complexity of many cases, all 24 million living veterans are prohibited from hiring a lawyer to help them navigate the VA system. It is only after a veteran has spent months and even years exhausting the extensive VA administrative process that the veteran then may retain counsel--a process that often takes 3 or more years to complete. As the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA) testified before the Veterans' Affairs Committee last year, ``[t]his is too late in the process for counsel to be truly effective'' because by that time the evidentiary record ``is effectively closed.'' On the other hand, NOVA testified that, if attorneys were retained at an earlier stage of the process, they could be helpful in obtaining and presenting necessary evidence and in ensuring that VA timely and accurately processes claims. So, with the potential for lawyers to help veterans successfully navigate this increasingly complex system, why does the government prohibit veterans from retaining counsel? This restriction, which dates back to the Civil War, was born out of concern that unscrupulous attorneys would improperly take large portions of veterans' disability benefits as compensation for their services. And some will argue that this concern is equally warranted today. Although I understand this longstanding desire to protect veterans' disability compensation, I would ask my colleagues to consider a simple question posited in a recent editorial: ``If American soldiers are mature and responsible enough to choose to risk their lives for their country, shouldn't they be considered competent to hire a lawyer?'' I believe the obvious answer to that question is ``yes.'' Particularly for veterans of to day's All-Volunteer Force--which has been described as the ``best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the history of the world''--this paternalistic restriction is simply outdated. These highly trained, highly skilled veterans have the ability--and should have the right--to decide whether or not to hire a lawyer. This is a right that is not denied to individuals seeking other earned benefits from the government. In fact, if a veteran were to seek Social Security benefits for disabilities suffered during military service, the veteran would be permitted to hire an attorney--while the same veteran seeking benefits from VA for the same disabilities would be prohibited from hiring an attorney based on this remnant of an ancient policy. The paternalistic restriction that prevents veterans from hiring counsel may have been advisable 150 years ago, but--as one veterans' organization recently testified before the Veterans' Affairs Committee--there is now no logic to it ``except history.'' It has endured for far too long and it is now time to embrace Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' admonition that it is ``revolting'' for a law to persist ``in blind imitation of the past.'' It is time to repeal this archaic law and to allow our Nation's veterans the option of hiring counsel. Having said all that, I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that attorneys should be considered necessary in order to obtain VA benefits. Above all, we must ensure that the system continues to serve veterans in a claimant-friendly, non-adversarial manner--regardless of the presence of an attorney or any other representative--and we must strive to reduce the complexities of this vast system. I hope that veterans' organizations across the country will join me in pursuing those goals. I also want to be clear that, although I believe veterans should have the option to hire attorneys, they should not be discouraged in any way from utilizing the free services now provided by many dedicated representatives of veterans' service organizations. Those representatives are an important and valuable resource that veterans and their families will undoubtedly continue to rely on for many generations to come. The availability of this resource, however, is no reason to restrict veterans' access to other options. If a veteran would rather hire an attorney, we should not stand in the way. At the same time, however, we should ensure that anyone who represents a veteran is held to the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct and that any fee charged to a veteran is patently reasonable. To that end, this legislation will allow veterans the right to hire an attorney at any time and it will heighten the expectations on all individuals who represent veterans. Specifically, this legislation will allow VA to ensure that all attorneys who practice before VA have adequate training or experience in this specialized area of law to competently represent veterans and that they conform to specified standards of ethical and professional conduct. It would also allow VA to ensure that all veterans' representatives are honest, professional, and law abiding; that they avoid further delaying or complicating the system by presenting frivolous claims or arguments; and that they conduct themselves with due regard for the non-adversarial nature of the system. For veterans who opt to hire an attorney, this legislation would provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with authority to reduce any attorney fee if it is excessive or unreasonable and with authority to set restrictions on the amount of fees that could be charged in any case before VA. Finally, in order to avoid any drain on existing VA resources, VA would have authority to impose on attorneys a registration fee to defray any costs associated with allowing them to practice before VA. In sum, this legislation will take measures to ensure that the interests of veterans will be protected, while allowing them to decide for themselves whether they want to hire a lawyer. I ask my colleagues to support this groundbreaking legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on legislation that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, and I are introducing. This bill will provide veterans with the right to hire counsel to represent them in proceedings before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and will help ensure that all who represent veterans are held to the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct. As President Abraham Lincoln eloquently expressed nearly 150 years ago, this Nation has an obligation ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.'' In keeping with that charge, the Federal Government provides a wide array of benefits to veterans and their dependents, through an administrative system that is intended to be informal, claimant-friendly, and non-adversarial. During recent years, however, veterans' organizations, VA, and others have observed that this system has become increasingly complex. Enhanced legal requirements and layers of procedural steps intended to protect the rights of veterans have increased both the complexity of the system and how long it takes to process a claim. At the same time, with the Nation at war and servicemembers deployed around the world, the disability claims filed by returning veterans have become more complex. Many of these claims are based on disabilities caused by environmental exposures, traumatic brain injuries, psychological trauma, severe combat wounds, and other highly complex medical conditions, which by their nature may entail complex questions of causality or intricate factual or legal analyses. Despite the increasing complexity of many cases, all 24 million living veterans are prohibited from hiring a lawyer to help them navigate the VA system. It is only after a veteran has spent months and even years exhausting the extensive VA administrative process that the veteran then may retain counsel--a process that often takes 3 or more years to complete. As the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA) testified before the Veterans' Affairs Committee last year, ``[t]his is too late in the process for counsel to be truly effective'' because by that time the evidentiary record ``is effectively closed.'' On the other hand, NOVA testified that, if attorneys were retained at an earlier stage of the process, they could be helpful in obtaining and presenting necessary evidence and in ensuring that VA timely and accurately processes claims. So, with the potential for lawyers to help veterans successfully navigate this increasingly complex system, why does the government prohibit veterans from retaining counsel? This restriction, which dates back to the Civil War, was born out of concern that unscrupulous attorneys would improperly take large portions of veterans' disability benefits as compensation for their services. And some will argue that this concern is equally warranted today. Although I understand this longstanding desire to protect veterans' disability compensation, I would ask my colleagues to consider a simple question posited in a recent editorial: ``If American soldiers are mature and responsible enough to choose to risk their lives for their country, shouldn't they be considered competent to hire a lawyer?'' I believe the obvious answer to that question is ``yes.'' Particularly for veterans of to day's All-Volunteer Force--which has been described as the ``best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the history of the world''--this paternalistic restriction is simply outdated. These highly trained, highly skilled veterans have the ability--and should have the right--to decide whether or not to hire a lawyer. This is a right that is not denied to individuals seeking other earned benefits from the government. In fact, if a veteran were to seek Social Security benefits for disabilities suffered during military service, the veteran would be permitted to hire an attorney--while the same veteran seeking benefits from VA for the same disabilities would be prohibited from hiring an attorney based on this remnant of an ancient policy. The paternalistic restriction that prevents veterans from hiring counsel may have been advisable 150 years ago, but--as one veterans' organization recently testified before the Veterans' Affairs Committee--there is now no logic to it ``except history.'' It has endured for far too long and it is now time to embrace Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' admonition that it is ``revolting'' for a law to persist ``in blind imitation of the past.'' It is time to repeal this archaic law and to allow our Nation's veterans the option of hiring counsel. Having said all that, I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that attorneys should be considered necessary in order to obtain VA benefits. Above all, we must ensure that the system continues to serve veterans in a claimant-friendly, non-adversarial manner--regardless of the presence of an attorney or any other representative--and we must strive to reduce the complexities of this vast system. I hope that veterans' organizations across the country will join me in pursuing those goals. I also want to be clear that, although I believe veterans should have the option to hire attorneys, they should not be discouraged in any way from utilizing the free services now provided by many dedicated representatives of veterans' service organizations. Those representatives are an important and valuable resource that veterans and their families will undoubtedly continue to rely on for many generations to come. The availability of this resource, however, is no reason to restrict veterans' access to other options. If a veteran would rather hire an attorney, we should not stand in the way. At the same time, however, we should ensure that anyone who represents a veteran is held to the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct and that any fee charged to a veteran is patently reasonable. To that end, this legislation will allow veterans the right to hire an attorney at any time and it will heighten the expectations on all individuals who represent veterans. Specifically, this legislation will allow VA to ensure that all attorneys who practice before VA have adequate training or experience in this specialized area of law to competently represent veterans and that they conform to specified standards of ethical and professional conduct. It would also allow VA to ensure that all veterans' representatives are honest, professional, and law abiding; that they avoid further delaying or complicating the system by presenting frivolous claims or arguments; and that they conduct themselves with due regard for the non-adversarial nature of the system. For veterans who opt to hire an attorney, this legislation would provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with authority to reduce any attorney fee if it is excessive or unreasonable and with authority to set restrictions on the amount of fees that could be charged in any case before VA. Finally, in order to avoid any drain on existing VA resources, VA would have authority to impose on attorneys a registration fee to defray any costs associated with allowing them to practice before VA. In sum, this legislation will take measures to ensure that the interests of veterans will be protected, while allowing them to decide for themselves whether they want to hire a lawyer. I ask my colleagues to support this groundbreaking legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me speak briefly on what we have done and why I suggest we do not need to do it. I have the great privilege of being the chairman of the authorizing Veterans Affairs Committee. The Senator from Texas has done the right thing to shape the Akaka amendment that calls for, in an emergency spending bill, an emergency of $430 million in this fiscal year, and yet, did you hear what the Senator from Texas said? Because of what I demanded last year, because of what she demanded, because of what Senator Murray demanded, because of what Senator Akaka demanded, we now have a much more accurate accounting system, a quarterly reporting system of the Veterans' Administration. Right now, based on the money we gave them for the 2006 budget, they are 4.3 percent under their spending levels as projected. What does that mean? It means that over $600 million they thought they would spend they are now not spending. So where is the emergency? It doesn't exist. Why are we doing this? How can you spend more in a program in the last half of the year than the whole program was designed to spend in 12 months? And yet in three of the four programs that the Akaka amendment deals with, it does just that. It doesn't make any sense. Well, any fiscal sense. It may make political sense. But the reality is this is simply wrong. In the 2007 budget, we increased their spending. It is the largest increase in a single department spending than any of our Government. Why? Because Congress--Democrats and Republicans--are phenomenally sensitive to the needs of our veterans, and I am extremely proud of that. In no way do I suggest that the Senator from Hawaii is less sensitive. It is why he is on the floor and cares deeply about our veterans and our veterans' needs, and we work closely together. But I must tell my colleagues, how can we increase budgets halfway through the year by 75 or 80 percent and spend them wisely, responsibly? We cannot. This money, if it were allocated, will not get spent. That is why the Senator from Texas, who is the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, said only if an emergency occurs. Right now there is almost $600 million in unspent money that was designated for the timeframe, and there is a $430 million contingency fund already built into the VA, and we know that. That is a fact. It is operated that way. Do the numbers, folks. If there were an emergency, we have over $1 billion worth of resources to assure that our veterans have what they need. I will argue all the time for our veterans, but I do believe our veterans expect us to be fiscally responsible, along with meeting their needs. I cannot imagine that there is a veteran out there today who would suggest that in most instances we are not meeting their needs. We brought one of the finest health care systems in the world to the forefront again. We have expended phenomenal amounts of money on it. And this year, the VA budget is bigger than any other budget in our Federal Government, including Defense during wartime. I am talking about rates of increase, not total dollars. Those are the realities with which we are dealing. I don't mind standing up and talking about it. Why? Because I can go home to my veterans and say we have been fair and we have been responsible, and I am not willing to listen to the VSOs that ``you gotta, gotta, gotta spend more.'' Is there a limit to how much we should spend? No, there isn't, apparently. I hope in the end, even though it has been effectively shaped so it won't get spent and it won't get spent because it isn't needed, that the President, as he should, and the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration, as he should, will have the opportunity to declare an emergency if it happens and this Congress will know it now because of what we in a bipartisan way did to make sure what happened a year ago never happens again. We are now reported to quarterly for the first time in the history of the VA. By the last report, they are 4.3 percent under their spending proposal and that $600 million--do the numbers, folks. At a time of major deficits in this country, we are going to spend more of this kind of money? No, we are just going to put it on the books now. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I speak today of my strong concern over what I believe are troubling movements in the Western Hemisphere in relation to U.S. energy independence, energy security, and competitiveness of the U.S. oil and gas industry in the region and this country's political and economic influence in our own backyard. For all the right reasons, in the past few years we have been appropriately focused on developments in the greater Middle East as we have engaged in a global war on terror and fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. Again, we are absolutely right to be engaged in conflicts in that region. But it is dangerous for any region to have a monopoly on this country's attention. At home, in this Senate, we have engaged in many debates regarding U.S. energy independence. This issue was first recognized in World War I, when Winston Churchill stated that the answers to energy security ``lie in variety and variety alone.'' Energy security is becoming a hot topic, and many Senators--Democrats and Republicans--have been on the floor the last few days talking about tight oil markets, high oil prices, threats of terrorism, instability in some of the exporting nations, nationalistic backlashes in other fiercely competitive areas and supplies, geopolitical rivalries, and all countries' absolute need for energy to power their economic growth. We have no time to waste to move forward on a sound national energy policy. Many of us in this body have taken the first step. We passed last August a national energy policy. By its action, we agreed to drastically decrease our energy dependence on the Middle East. Now our economy in energy is working in that direction, slowly, because of the phenomenal investment in time it takes to turn something as big as our energy industries of all kinds. In 2005, the U.S. obtained 41 percent of its total petroleum imports from OPEC countries, which equals 27 percent of total U.S. consumption. In order to reduce our reliance on Middle East energy sources and strengthen our Nation's energy security, it goes without saying that our energy sector must be doing business elsewhere. No doubt, the closest, therefore the most economically viable, option should be to turn to our own backyard or should I say ``-yards.'' Unfortunately, that is hard to do when we too frequently send our oil and gas companies into international competition hobbled by self- defeating laws and regulations that allow our economic adversaries and our competitors to beat us to the punch right at our doorstep. I must point out that it is certainly ironic that the same people blocking the American public from obtaining resources in our own country, and in the region, are the same people not offering solutions to the new and very rapidly growing demand across the world. Frankly, the United States has taken our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere for granted. We have hamstrung the United States energy sector from seeking additional resources in the region while at the same time allowing the likes of China and Canada and Brazil and France and others to freely seek energy opportunities 50 miles off our coast without competition from state-of-the-art technologies and expertise of our own United States gas and oil industries. I have here a chart that is phenomenally self-explanatory. As shown, here is the coast of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Of course, here is the great peninsula or the Panhandle of Florida down to the Keys. Here is Cuba. And literally, within the last 2 years, Cuba, within their water, 50 miles off the furthest point of the Keys of Florida, has allowed the nations of China and Canada and Spain to start drilling. It will be possible--or should I say it may be possible--to stand on the furthest Florida Key in the near future and see an oil rig drilling in Cuban water. Did that happen accidentally? No. Why isn't an American company, with the best technology that could do it the cleanest, there? Because we simply have not allowed that to be. For example, a February 2005 U.S. Geological Survey reported on a possible deposit in the Northern Cuban Basin--this area shown on the map that is all charted off--estimated at 4.6 billion barrels of oil, and possibly as much as 9.3 billion barrels. I would remind my colleagues these estimates are almost the same as the kind we are talking about on the Coastal Plain of Alaska known as ANWR, and it is simply 50 to 60 miles off our coast. So the question must be asked: What is the U.S. doing while foreign countries and companies are exploring right off the U.S. coast in the Northern Cuban Basin, which is adjacent to the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf and contiguous to this country's Exclusive Economic Zone? Well, I can firmly tell my colleagues that we are doing absolutely nothing about it. Not one single U.S. company is exploring in these potentially beneficial waters that extend to within 50 miles off the Florida coast. Oh, we are all angst about Gas Lease Sale 181, and it is at least 120 miles off of any coast. But stand on a high place in the lower Florida Keys someday and you may see an oil rig, and it will not be ours. It could be Red China's, or certainly mainland China's. I guess that is the politically correct thing to say about them now. And, frankly, ladies and gentlemen, it is China, and they are drilling in our backyard. I am certain the American public would be shocked, as this country is trying to reduce its dependency on Middle East oil, that countries such as China are realizing this energy resource. In my opinion, China is using the area off our coast and in the Cuban national waters as a strategic commodity reserve. It is doing this by acquiring exclusive rights in the emerging Cuban offshore oil sector, thereby forever closing the door on those resources to the United States itself and dramatically impacting our foreign policy in the region. As the administration recently pointed out in its National Security Strategy, China has quickly become the world's second largest user of petroleum products. Additionally, the administration's most recent National Security Strategy appropriately points out that China is ``expanding trade, but acting as if they can somehow lock-up energy supplies around the world or seek to direct markets rather than opening them up.'' We will miss the boat--because, folks, this boat will sail only but once--if we continue to deny ourselves the right to allow our companies to engage where they ought to be engaging, where they have the talent, the resources, and the expertise to engage. But, instead we are by our action forcing potentially substandard companies that do not have the talent, the expertise, the environmental know-how, to drill in an area that could be phenomenally damaging to the coast of Florida. That is the reality of today's policy in this country. Higher oil prices will spur others to turn marginal opportunities into commercial prospects with or without the United States. As we saw last week, since demand for oil is so high, any disruption in small oil production--whether it be in Ecuador or Argentina or the Congo or Egypt or Azerbaijan or Bahrain or Sudan or Yemen or Chad--can have a profound impact on oil prices at the pump anywhere in this country. It is for this reason that we must and should act aggressively to diversify our imports and production and compete with other nations around the world. On top of the economic competitiveness we are missing out on, we are also allowing the energy security of this country to slip away, to slip away right in our backyard. Simply put, too many unknowns lie in the hands of terrorists, instability, and chaos in the Middle East. Therefore, let us think about and rid ourselves of the vulnerability that we forced ourselves into by the responsible and environmentally sound development of our own resources or resources that are just across the fence in our neighbor's backyard. This is the opportunity we now deny ourselves. I intend to look at these opportunities to bring about potential legislation that will cause this Senate to look and to act responsibly, as it would allow us to deal with these kinds of opportunities, instead of simply denying them. We think we can build a buffer around us to secure ourselves environmentally, and yet we have denied our backdoor. Our backdoor is open. The southern Florida coast is potentially vulnerable to second-rate drilling capabilities from foreign countries that do not have the kind of deepwater expertise and talent that has resulted in no spills by U.S. companies now for well over a decade. Therein lies the opportunity. Yet we have some who would say: Oh, my, 50 miles we will turn our back on but 100 miles out, oh, we have a problem there. No, folks, we have a problem here, and we have a problem in Cuba. We ought to be recognizing it instead of denying it. Here is the reality. Here is the sale area, the opportunity that Cuba is now exploiting by allowing foreign countries to come in our backyard or, can I say, just across the fence in our neighbor's backyard. Is it 50 miles off the coast of Key West? Is it 70? Is it 90? It is all of those. And it is potentially an opportunity for us to work with another government in effectively, responsibly, and environmentally exploiting a very valuable resource. We have denied it. Shame on us. I yield the floor.