Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Because our debate time, as I understand it, is actually tomorrow, and I think we will go off and on this issue today, and because the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is on the floor managing the supplemental and may have other amendments he wants to deal with, I would hope we can rely on the Chair for moving us back and forth in a balanced way from side to side before we look at a structured way to proceed. I have difficulty with that.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. It is clear anybody coming to the floor to offer amendments to the supplemental would have that right.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, our Federal Government has got to do better, faster, in improving our border security and meeting the growing problem of illegal immigration. That is why Congress has been beefing up the border patrol and buying high-tech verification systems for the Department of Homeland Security. That is why, whether you agree on the specific methods or not, the House of Representatives attached national drivers' license standards and asylum changes, in the so-called REAL ID provisions, to the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill. That is why I have supported Senator Byrd on an amendment to this bill to increase border security, hire more investigators and enforcement agents, and boost resources for detention. That is why I am cosponsoring a bill to help States deal with undocumented criminal aliens. And that is why I have worked to bring the AgJOBS--bill the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act--to the Senate floor. I truly wish we did not have to have this debate on this bill on the Senate floor. However, the House of Representatives has forced this opportunity upon us. By putting border, identification, and asylum provisions in the supplemental, the House has turned this bill into an immigration bill. I am committed to making this debate as brief as possible, and as full and fair as necessary. As far as I am concerned, a thorough debate on AgJOBS does not need to take more than a couple hours, if we can get agreement from Senators who oppose the amendment. The Senate has enough time for this amendment. If anyone is going to unduly delay this bill, it is not this Senator. As a member of the Appropriations Committee and on this floor, I fully support prompt appropriations for our men and women in uniform and for operations necessary in the war on terrorism. AgJOBS is only an installment toward an overall solution to our nation's growing problem of illegal immigration. However, it is a significant installment, a logical installment, and one that is fully matured and ready to go forward. I have worked with my colleagues and numerous communities of interest on AgJOBS issues for several years. The amendment I bring forward this week has been, in all its major essentials, well-known and much discussed in the Senate and the House for more than a year and a half. This bipartisan effort builds upon years of discussion and suggestions among growers, farm worker advocates, Latino and immigration issue advocates, Members of both parties in both Houses of Congress, and others. We have now built the largest bipartisan coalition ever for a single immigration bill. This letter was just delivered this week to Senate offices. There are about 100 more signatures on this letter than a similar letter delivered a year ago. Support for AgJOBS is growing. That support reflects the fact that, in agriculture as in other sectors, the current immigration and labor market system is profoundly broken. An enforcement-only policy is not the answer and doesn't work. The United States has 7,458 miles of land borders and 88,600 miles of tidal shoreline. We can secure those frontiers well but not perfectly. As we have stepped up border enforcement, we have locked undocumented immigrants in this country at least as effectively as we have locked any out. With an estimated 10 million undocumented persons in the United States, to find them and flush them out of homes, schools, churches, and work places would mean an intrusion on the civil liberties of Americans that they will not tolerate. We fought our revolution, in part, over troops at our doors and in our homes. History has shown us what does work: A coupling of more secure borders, better internal enforcement, and a guest worker program that faces up to economic reality. The only experience our country has had with a legal farm guest worker program--used widely in the 1950s but repealed in the 1960s-- taught us conclusive lessons. While it was criticized on other grounds, that program dramatically reduced illegal immigration from high levels to almost nothing, while meeting labor market needs. AgJOBS is a groundbreaking, necessary part of this balanced, realistic approach. American agriculture has boldly stepped forward and admitted the problem. AgJOBS is a critical part of the solution. Agriculture is the sector of the economy for which the problem is the worst. Fifty to 75 percent of farm workers are undocumented. As internal enforcement has stepped up, family farms are going out of business because they cannot find legal workers. This mighty machine we call American agriculture is on a dangerous precipice--perhaps the most dangerous in our history. This year, for the first time since records have been kept, the United States is on the verge of becoming a net importer of agricultural products. To keep American-grown food on our families' tables, we need a stable, legal, labor supply. To keep suppliers, processors, and other rural jobs alive, American agriculture needs a stable, legal, labor supply. It has been said, foreign workers are going to harvest our food; the only question is whether they do it here or in another country. Whatever the case is in other industries, in agriculture, we really are talking about jobs that Americans can't or won't take. This physically demanding labor is seasonal and migrant in nature. Few Americans can or will leave home and family behind, to travel from State to State, crop to crop, for only part of the year, living in temporary structures. The planting, growing, and harvesting seasons occur at different times in different States--usually when students are not available. AgJOBS is also part of a humane solution. Legal workers can demand a living wage and assert legal rights that undocumented workers--smuggled into the country and kept ``underground''--cannot. Every year, more than 300 persons die in the desert, the boxcar, or the back of a truck trailer. For a civilized, humane country, that is intolerable. For the long term, AgJOBS reforms and streamlines the profoundly broken H-2A program that is supposed to provide legal, farm guest workers. It is now so bureaucratic and burdensome, it admits only about 40,000 workers a year--2 to 3 percent of farm workers. However, we cannot expand the H-2A program overnight. A system of consulate system, a Homeland Security bureaucracy, and a Department of Labor bureaucracy that, today, chokes on processing 40,000 workers a year will need several years to ramp up to several times that amount. Growers, almost all of which do not use H-2A today, will need time to get into the system. Also, growers will need time to build housing and prepare for the other labor standards that H-2A has always required to prevent foreign workers from taking jobs from Americans. As a bridge to stabilize the workforce while H-2A reforms are being implemented, AgJOBS includes a one-time-only earned adjustment program, to let about 500,000 trusted farm workers, with a proven, substantial work history here, continue working here, legally. The permanent H-2A reforms would make future farm worker adjustments unnecessary. AgJOBS is not amnesty or a reward for illegal behavior. Requiring several years of demanding, physical labor in the fields is an opportunity to rehabilitate to legal status--to earn the adjustment to legal status. Adjusting AgJOBS workers would have to meet a higher standard of good behavior than other, legal immigrants, in the future. Once a worker is in the adjustment program, he or she has to obey all the laws that other, legal immigrants have to. In addition, an adjusting worker would be deported for conviction of one felony; or three misdemeanors, however minor; or, in the amendment before, a single serious misdemeanor, defined as an offense that results in 6 months of jail time. Part of earning adjustment involves the immigrant surrendering to some limits on his or her legal rights--including a substantial prospective work requirement in agriculture and meeting a higher legal standard of good behavior than other, legal immigrants. The adjusting worker can apply for permanent residence--a green card--at the end of the adjustment process. As a practical matter, obtaining a green card would take about 6 to 9 years after the worker enters the adjustment process. For the work involved, the economic contributions made, and the diligence required over a long period of time, this is fair. Sharing the American dream with persons who want to be--and will be--law-abiding members of the community, is fair. AgJOBS workers, both adjusting and H-2A, would be free to leave the country at the end of the work season and not be ``locked in'' the country, between jobs. Finally, AgJOBS is good for our homeland security. With background checks, AgJOBS would let American families know who is putting the food on our tables. That means ensuring a safe and stable food supply for American families. When we stop sending investigators and enforcement agents into the potato fields and apple orchards, we will be able to devote critical resources where they belong--hunting down real criminals and stopping terrorists. AgJOBS is a win-win-win, for growers, workers, taxpayers, and homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several documents setting out facts about AgJOBS, the need for AgJOBS, frequently asked questions, and letters of endorsement from the New England Apple Council, Americans for Tax Reform, and from former U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Agriculture, Clayton Yeutter.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about immigration and the issue that will be before us for two very important votes tomorrow. My colleague from Alabama is also in the Chamber. I will take the allotted time under the unanimous consent, and then I think he wants to spend more time on these issues. What I find very fascinating is that everyone who has come to the Senate floor this afternoon to talk about immigration agrees that our country is in near crisis at this moment for our inability to control our borders, to stem the tide of illegal movement into our country, and to fashion comprehensive or targeted immigration law that effectively works. Simply put, our Federal Government has to do better. It has to move faster in improving our border security and meeting this phenomenally large and important issue of illegal immigration. Congress is no further along today on a comprehensive bill than it was a year ago at this time when my bill, the AgJOBS bill, had a thorough hearing before the Judiciary Committee. It is now well over 1,300 days since we woke up after 9/11 with thousands of our country men and women dead and a phenomenal frightening awakening on the part of the American people that there were millions of undocumented foreign nationals living in our country. As I said earlier, while most of them are law-abiding, are here to work, and are extremely hard-working people, we found out tragically enough that there were some here with evil intent, and we began to control our borders. I think that is why Congress then again started beefing up border patrol and buying high-tech verification systems for the Department of Homeland Security, and that is why, whether one agrees on the specific methods or not, the House of Representatives just attached to the legislation we are talking about this afternoon a national driver's license standard and asylum changes, those seeking asylum in our country, in the so-called REAL ID provisions to the Iraq supplemental. That is why I have supported a Byrd amendment on this bill to take money away from certain portions of this bill that are not immediately necessary for our troops for their security and allow our border security to hire more investigators and enforcement agents to boost up that whole area we are so concerned about. That is why I am cosponsoring a bill that helps States deal with undocumented criminal aliens. We must get it right everywhere if we are going to reinstate in our country secure borders and functional immigration law. That is why I have worked for the last good number of years on AgJOBS. We talk about it here today. What does it mean? It means Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Security Act. That is why we are on the floor of the Senate today. Some would argue we ought to be doing the Iraqi supplemental because it is urgent. None of this money is immediately necessary in Iraq. The House took 2 months to craft it. We are going to take a few days to pass it. But I must tell you as I have before, I believe the crisis in immigration today is every bit as significant. No matter the money we pour along the borders, still our borders are not under control, especially our southern border. Senator Kennedy came to the floor a few moments ago to give a very comprehensive analysis of how he and I, and now over 500 groups, have come together to try to resolve the issue of immigration, specific to American agriculture. Those are the issues at hand at this moment. We are not in any way obstructing the process. This afternoon could have been filled with amendments on the supplemental if those who have amendments would have been here to offer them. We are simply taking time in the debate. We will have those votes tomorrow. If Senators Saxby Chambliss and Jon Kyl do not get the necessary 60 votes, or I do not on these issues, they will be set aside. But they will not go away, because I do believe, as I think most Americans believe, somehow we have to get this right. Somehow it is necessary to do so. I am committed to making this debate as brief as possible. That is why I agreed to a unanimous consent request to conform it and to shape it, but to allow a full and fair and necessary debate. As far as I am concerned, a thorough debate on AgJOBS does not need to take a multiple of days or months. Every Senator knows this issue. Every Senator knows his and her constituents are upset at this moment because somehow Congress has failed to deal with this issue. I have received my fair share of criticism from some of my constituents for offering AgJOBS. I smiled and said: You sent me to work in Washington to solve a problem. I brought the solution to that problem. I believe it is the right one. No one else, except for those this afternoon, has brought a second solution. I welcome all Senators to get involved in this debate and understand the issues. But most importantly, we cannot do what past Congresses have done or what we have done for the over 1,300 days since 9/11, look over our shoulder and say: Oh, boy, that is a big problem; and, oh, boy, our borders are at risk and, yes, some of those illegals could be here to do us harm, but we can't seem to get our hands around it because it is such a complicated issue. I do not dispute its complications. But I am frustrated that the Senate and the House have literally not been able to act. I believe the Senate has had enough time. As I mentioned earlier, we have seen this bill when it was before the Judiciary Committee. I think most of my colleagues know about AgJOBS. Yes, 63 Senators supported it last year. We are now nearly at 50 at this time. Clearly a large number do support it. I think that is extremely important that we do. It is so necessary that we move appropriately to solve this problem and solve it in a timely fashion. This now gives us an opportunity to do that. As I said to my colleagues, I have worked on this issue with numerous communities of interest for nearly 5 years to craft what we believe is one of the best approaches to solving the problem, not only recognizing that illegals, the undocumented are a problem in our country, but once they are here, and if they are here illegally, how do we treat them? How does the agricultural economy provide for them and respond to them while they are so necessary in that workforce? That is what is embodied in AgJOBS. It is not simply a threshold of how you transition through. It is in reality a major reform of the H-2A program. Let's continue with this issue. I am going to stop at this moment. My colleague Senator Sessions is on the floor. I need to step away a few moments. I know he has important things to say--many that I agree with, but there are some I do not agree with. Don't kick this ball down the field to another day. We look now at a comprehensive piece of legislation. It is very necessary we attempt to solve it now, get this Congress involved, and tell the American people we hear them, we know our national security is at risk, and in this instance our food security is at risk. We need to solve a very important problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator is making a very interesting point. Has the Senator looked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics' numbers of those they believe--if the law were passed--are AgJOBS eligible?

Mr. CRAIG. About 500,000 is what they estimate. When you do all of the very thorough background checks we have within it that are consistent with immigration law today, they figure a certain number would fall out, and then there are the wives and dependents. A very large number of these are not married. They have no immediate family-- about 200,000 more. It is reasonable to say the Department of Labor is looking at a total number of workers, spouse, and dependents of upwards of possibly 700,000. I know millions and millions are talked about. I believe that is unrealistic based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Does the Senator disagree with those figures?

Mr. CRAIG. Based on what figures?

Mr. CRAIG. I don't disagree with that. But the criteria was entirely different. If I could be so kind, I think my colleague is mixing apples and oranges and getting an interesting blend of a new juice. An earned status approach has never been used before. The full background check, and the thoroughness of that background check as we anticipate in this legislation, is only used when you have a legal immigrant standing in line. In fact, our law is more stringent for illegal than it is for the legal immigrant because they can get the misdemeanors. We say, if you get a misdemeanor with 6 months' incarceration, that is pretty serious. The Senator from Alabama is an attorney. Would he agree with that? They are out of here. There is a much different criteria when you start comparing the total numbers. That is why I think they would be different.

Mr. CRAIG. Then they are deported.

Mr. CRAIG. That is correct. That is the current law. That is what current law says for the illegal immigrant.

Mr. CRAIG. It is in the law.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague for yielding. What is important is the bill be read very thoroughly. Extrapolations can be made. But when it says 100 hours of work, I think it is important to assume you would only work 1 hour a day for 100 days. That is not a very logical process. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Senior Elder Care Relief and Empowerment Act--the SECURE Act. The SECURE Act would provide eligible taxpayers with a nonrefundable tax credit equal to 50 percent of qualified expenses incurred on behalf of senior citizens above a $1,000 spending floor. The Senate Special Committee on Aging, which I chaired in the 108th Congress and of which I remain a member, held several hearings over the last couple years on different facets of the growing long-term care crisis in this country. A major concern of mine is that the Federal long-term care policy mix may not have the right incentives--especially when it comes to the tough choices faced by families who want to care for their frail and aging relatives. More and more families are facing the stress and financial difficulties that come with caring for their aging parents. It is critical to note that families, not government, provide 80 percent of long-term care for older persons in the United States. This is an enormous strength of our long-term care system. The U.S. Administration on Aging reports that about 22 million people serve as informal caregivers for seniors with at least one limitation on their activities of daily living. These caregivers often face extreme stress and financial burden-- especially those we call the sandwich generation. The sandwich generation refers to those sandwiched between caring for their aging parents and caring for their own children. It is difficult for families to balance caring for children and saving or paying for college, while at the same time struggling with financing care for frail and aging parents. Many caregivers forgo job promotions, reduce their hours on the job, cut back to part-time, or take extended leaves of absence to stay at home and care for their aging family members. Direct expenses include the cost of prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, home modifications, and physical therapy. Caregivers also endure emotional and personal health strains. The average age of a caregiver is 57, with one-third over age 65 themselves. Caregivers suffer from higher rates of depression or anxiety. These conditions often lead to higher risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or other chronic conditions. For many families, the nursing home is the only solution for providing long-term care, and that can be a good choice. For other families, keeping aging and vulnerable relatives in their own home or in the caregiver's home makes sense. Family caregiving for aging and vulnerable relatives requires a flexible national response to ensure seniors and their families have the most appropriate high quality choices. That is why I am introducing the SECURE Act. This legislation would help reduce the financial strain and related emotional and medical stress faced by family caregivers, as they care for their frail and aging parents, by providing much-needed tax relief for qualified expenses. The SECURE Act would increase the eldercare choices available to families and has the potential to reduce the number of seniors forced to spend down their nest-egg in order to qualify for Medicaid services. Qualified expenses include costs that are not reimbursable--those not covered by Medicare or other insurance--for physical assistance with essential daily activities to prevent injury; long-term care expenses, including normal household services; architectural expenses necessary to modify the senior's residence; respite care; adult daycare; assisted living services that are non-housing related expenses; independent living; home care; and home health care. Seniors with long-term care needs also would be able to use the tax credit on their own behalf. The SECURE Act should not preclude seniors or those near retirement from purchasing long-term care insurance. The Act would provide tax relief for high-risk seniors who cannot qualify for long-term care insurance policies. I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this compassionate legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a brief description be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Senior Elder Care Relief and Empowerment Act--the SECURE Act. The SECURE Act would provide eligible taxpayers with a nonrefundable tax credit equal to 50 percent of qualified expenses incurred on behalf of senior citizens above a $1,000 spending floor. The Senate Special Committee on Aging, which I chaired in the 108th Congress and of which I remain a member, held several hearings over the last couple years on different facets of the growing long-term care crisis in this country. A major concern of mine is that the Federal long-term care policy mix may not have the right incentives--especially when it comes to the tough choices faced by families who want to care for their frail and aging relatives. More and more families are facing the stress and financial difficulties that come with caring for their aging parents. It is critical to note that families, not government, provide 80 percent of long-term care for older persons in the United States. This is an enormous strength of our long-term care system. The U.S. Administration on Aging reports that about 22 million people serve as informal caregivers for seniors with at least one limitation on their activities of daily living. These caregivers often face extreme stress and financial burden-- especially those we call the sandwich generation. The sandwich generation refers to those sandwiched between caring for their aging parents and caring for their own children. It is difficult for families to balance caring for children and saving or paying for college, while at the same time struggling with financing care for frail and aging parents. Many caregivers forgo job promotions, reduce their hours on the job, cut back to part-time, or take extended leaves of absence to stay at home and care for their aging family members. Direct expenses include the cost of prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, home modifications, and physical therapy. Caregivers also endure emotional and personal health strains. The average age of a caregiver is 57, with one-third over age 65 themselves. Caregivers suffer from higher rates of depression or anxiety. These conditions often lead to higher risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or other chronic conditions. For many families, the nursing home is the only solution for providing long-term care, and that can be a good choice. For other families, keeping aging and vulnerable relatives in their own home or in the caregiver's home makes sense. Family caregiving for aging and vulnerable relatives requires a flexible national response to ensure seniors and their families have the most appropriate high quality choices. That is why I am introducing the SECURE Act. This legislation would help reduce the financial strain and related emotional and medical stress faced by family caregivers, as they care for their frail and aging parents, by providing much-needed tax relief for qualified expenses. The SECURE Act would increase the eldercare choices available to families and has the potential to reduce the number of seniors forced to spend down their nest-egg in order to qualify for Medicaid services. Qualified expenses include costs that are not reimbursable--those not covered by Medicare or other insurance--for physical assistance with essential daily activities to prevent injury; long-term care expenses, including normal household services; architectural expenses necessary to modify the senior's residence; respite care; adult daycare; assisted living services that are non-housing related expenses; independent living; home care; and home health care. Seniors with long-term care needs also would be able to use the tax credit on their own behalf. The SECURE Act should not preclude seniors or those near retirement from purchasing long-term care insurance. The Act would provide tax relief for high-risk seniors who cannot qualify for long-term care insurance policies. I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this compassionate legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a brief description be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhanced Safety from Wildfire Act of 2005. I am joined by my colleagues Mr. Crapo and Mr. Smith. The legislation we are introducing would amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to make it possible for non-federal land owners to receive compensation for a loss of property as a result of wildfire spreading from Federal land that has not been managed as Condition Class 1. As we all know, in recent years, there has been a significant amount of injury and loss of property resulting from the spread of wildfire from Federal forested lands to non-Federal lands. Recent wildfires on federal forested lands have shown that lands managed under approved forest health management practices are less susceptible to wildfire, or are subjected to less severe wildfire, than similarly forested lands that are not actively managed. There is a continuing and growing threat to the safety of communities, individuals, homes and other property, and timber on non- Federal lands that adjoin Federal forested lands because of the unnatural accumulation of forest fuels on these Federal lands and the lack of active Federal management of these lands. The use of approved forest health management practices to create forest fire ``buffer zones'' between forested Federal lands and adjacent non-Federal lands would reduce the occurrence of wildfires on forested federal lands or, at least, limit their spread to non-Federal lands and the severity of the resulting damage. This legislation requires the agencies to manage a ``buffer zone'' on Federal land, greater than 6,400 acres, that is adjacent to non-Federal land. When forested Federal lands adjacent to non-Federal lands are not adequately managed with a ``buffer zone'' and wildfire occurs, the legislation states the owners of the non-Federal lands are eligible for compensation for damages resulting from the spread of wildfire to their lands. The legislation sets minimum criteria for non-Federal land to be eligible for compensation. Our federal land management agencies need to take responsibility for the impacts that occur on non-Federal land as a result of a lack of management on federal land. As a society, we have come to expect that our neighbors take responsibility for their actions and I feel the federal land management agencies should not escape this responsibility either. In the next few weeks, the weather will heat up, the drought ridden West will become drier, wildfire danger will rise, and I fear we will once again hear reports regarding the loss of property. I know this legislation may not be the answer to solving our Federal land management problems and I am willing to discuss other options, but I know that until we address the heart of this issue, homes, private land, and communities will continue to be at risk because of poor Federal land management. Being a good neighbor means being responsible for your actions.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhanced Safety from Wildfire Act of 2005. I am joined by my colleagues Mr. Crapo and Mr. Smith. The legislation we are introducing would amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to make it possible for non-federal land owners to receive compensation for a loss of property as a result of wildfire spreading from Federal land that has not been managed as Condition Class 1. As we all know, in recent years, there has been a significant amount of injury and loss of property resulting from the spread of wildfire from Federal forested lands to non-Federal lands. Recent wildfires on federal forested lands have shown that lands managed under approved forest health management practices are less susceptible to wildfire, or are subjected to less severe wildfire, than similarly forested lands that are not actively managed. There is a continuing and growing threat to the safety of communities, individuals, homes and other property, and timber on non- Federal lands that adjoin Federal forested lands because of the unnatural accumulation of forest fuels on these Federal lands and the lack of active Federal management of these lands. The use of approved forest health management practices to create forest fire ``buffer zones'' between forested Federal lands and adjacent non-Federal lands would reduce the occurrence of wildfires on forested federal lands or, at least, limit their spread to non-Federal lands and the severity of the resulting damage. This legislation requires the agencies to manage a ``buffer zone'' on Federal land, greater than 6,400 acres, that is adjacent to non-Federal land. When forested Federal lands adjacent to non-Federal lands are not adequately managed with a ``buffer zone'' and wildfire occurs, the legislation states the owners of the non-Federal lands are eligible for compensation for damages resulting from the spread of wildfire to their lands. The legislation sets minimum criteria for non-Federal land to be eligible for compensation. Our federal land management agencies need to take responsibility for the impacts that occur on non-Federal land as a result of a lack of management on federal land. As a society, we have come to expect that our neighbors take responsibility for their actions and I feel the federal land management agencies should not escape this responsibility either. In the next few weeks, the weather will heat up, the drought ridden West will become drier, wildfire danger will rise, and I fear we will once again hear reports regarding the loss of property. I know this legislation may not be the answer to solving our Federal land management problems and I am willing to discuss other options, but I know that until we address the heart of this issue, homes, private land, and communities will continue to be at risk because of poor Federal land management. Being a good neighbor means being responsible for your actions.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans Committee, Senator Akaka, to introduce legislation providing a traumatic injury protection rider for servicemembers. I urge all my colleagues to review this important legislation and support its enactment, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans Committee, Senator Akaka, to introduce legislation providing a traumatic injury protection rider for servicemembers. I urge all my colleagues to review this important legislation and support its enactment, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I have never been mean to the Senator from California, nor has she to me. She obviously makes very important points. None of those have been disputed and none of them have been dismissed out of hand. California is a unique situation. Texas is a unique situation. My State of Idaho has a large number of undocumenteds during the year, but it is equal to one county in the Central Valley of California. I understand that. I don't understand California agriculture as well as the Senator from California, but I spent a good deal of time down there because I work on a broad variety of issues dealing with California and water. California has a very real problem. The Senator has a right to be concerned and alarmed. Any amendments she would wish to offer that are viewed as constructive I will take a very hard look at to make sure that what we do works. Yes, we have a January 1, 2005, date. I will not get into the details of my bill. We will debate that. So the rush of the border would already have had to occur. But it hasn't. It has increased simply because there is a demand for workers in this country. If the Senator wants to help me shape that more, I am willing to listen to that and see what we can do with amendments that deal with the misdemeanor issue she is concerned about and a time certain. None of us wants to create a rush at the border. What we want to create for California and the rest of the country is a legal workforce that is there, real, and honors those here for 3, 4, 5 years, who are married and have families here. We say: Go back to Mexico, and you may get back across the border.

Mr. CRAIG. The question is quite simple: Offer your amendments, and I will take a serious look at them. You make very important issues for your State and many other States, and I hope you will do that in a fair and responsible way, as you have always been on this issue.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Maryland for bringing that up. What he demonstrates by that statement is a system that works. But he also demonstrates that the other Senator from Maryland has recognized that when pressures build and limits are met, you turn the valve a little bit and let the pressure off and let the legal system work, quite often in H-2A. Last year, 45,000 people were identified. But 1.6 million are in the workforce. We had a system in H-2A that worked like this, and we were sensitive and constantly working to adjust it. And we wouldn't have an illegal, undocumented problem that we will debate later tomorrow or next week. This is a system that works, but it also is one that we have been sensitive to and have been willing to adjust the cap so everybody can effectively play by the rules and meet the employment needs they have. I yield the floor.