Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand at this moment to very cautiously oppose the resolution and to express my reason. I say ``cautiously'' because of my respect for the Senator from Texas and respect for the Senator from California and all of the work they are putting into immigration and the need for comprehensive reform. None of us in the Senate argue about it, but we certainly are willing to talk about it. In fact, we have talked about it now for 1,201 days since 9/11. Mr. President, 9/11 was that day of awakening when we found out there were millions of foreign nationals in our country without documentation, and some of them were here with evil intent. Not many but some. Most are here and hardworking. Tragically enough, because of the character of an obsolete package of immigration laws, they are living in the back streets and shadows of America. They have no rights. They work hard. Many of them take their money back to their birth country. Some of them attempt to stay. That is where we are. We all know that. The Senator from California has talked about the numbers. Her State has a very big problem. I hope we can get into that debate. Let me also talk about the timing of it. I think you are going to see, if it is extended, only those who would want to extend the time of this debate. The issue of the Senator from Maryland is a very small, sensitive, important debate. It is very time sensitive. That law should have been in place the first of April so the hires could have gone forth at the first of May. In my State, the resorts open June 1. It is critical that workforce be in place by June 1. Comprehensive debate, according to the Senator from Texas, should probably take place late summer, early fall, when they have finally done their work. I do not criticize them for that. But I must tell you, long before 9/11 I was looking at the very tragic situation of American agriculture. American agriculture has admitted openly that they have a very large problem. It is quite simple. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics will tell you the workforce may have as many as, well, 1.6 million workers, and 70 percent of them are not documented and therefore, by definition, illegal. By surveys alone, the workers admit it. Yet we now say: Gee whiz, we will talk about it now. It is too late now. It can't be done now. It is time sensitive to the industry, very time sensitive to the food on the shelf of the American consumer, time sensitive to humane support of those who toil in our fields. No, there is never the right time. And, oh, about this supplemental, this ``urgent'' supplemental--I am sorry, I do not mean to criticize the Senator from Texas--we have been urgently working on this for 2 months. That is how long ago the President proposed it, 2 months ago. We will have this on the President's desk by the first of May. That is when they want it. We do not need to debate immigration for 4, 5 days unless the Senator from California wants to drag it out. There will be amendments on the floor of the Senate to my bill, and there should be. It is open for amendment. I would hope I could convince Senators to take it as it is. It has had hearings before the Judiciary Committee. It is well vetted. It has been 8 years in the crafting. Last year, I had 509 groups supporting it. This year I will have 600. This issue's time has come, and it is time the Senate deal with it openly and forthrightly. I was willing to step back for a moment. I told the leader so. The leader worked on it but could not put that package together. I will be on the floor of the Senate later today, hopefully, offering my amendment. It has been filed at the desk. We can deal with this in a day, unless there are Senators who want to drag it out by throwing in amendments that ought to go in the substantive comprehensive package that the Senator from Texas, chairing the committee, is working on and attempting to do at this moment. A comprehensive bill? You bet. Rifle shots, targeted? You bet. We have to do it now and should do it now--H-2B, H-2A, critical to Americas's workforce and food supply now, not this fall or this winter or next year. We almost collapsed the raisin industry in the Central Valley in California last year. Why? Because Social Security was doing its work and checking Social Security numbers. And 72 percent of them were mismatches. That is a phrase for ``illegal.'' The Senator from California knows it. She has admitted she has a major problem in the heart of America's agricultural food basket. Shame on us for not having the time to deal with the problem and deal with it forthrightly, honestly, and fairly. I am willing to subject my work to amendments, if the Senator from California wants to bring all of the amendments she can. I would hope she would target it to those specific two, the AgJOBS bill. She is right about misdemeanors, but I am only following the current Federal law, the current law for immigration. I haven't changed it at all. If she doesn't like it, she will bring amendments, and maybe we can adjust that a little. I have worked with the Senator from California. I am not disagreeing with the premise of some of her arguments. But if she wants to throw the whole baby in with the bath water, then she had better be careful because she will collapse her agricultural economy if we make a misstep. We are doing something right now that is critical to America and to America's culture. We are trying to control our borders. We are trying to apprehend and deport those in our country who are illegal. We ought to do that. I have voted for everything along the way. But as we work to get all of this done and clean up the inheritance of the last 20 years of bad law or law that wasn't enforceable--and we learned all about it in a post-9/11 environment--we have to remember one thing: As we do the right things, we have to do all of it the right way or we will collapse certain segments of America's economy because we destroyed the workforce that is out there at this moment, toiling in America's agricultural fields or in America's processing plants, working hard to take money home to their children and wives--not here, dominantly in Mexico. Some here. That is the reality that I bring to the floor, and I am very willing to debate. I hope we can get into that debate later on today. When you think about the Cornyn-Feinstein resolution, that this is not the right thing, then when is it? Twelve hundred days from now, 1,300, 1,400 days from the day that America awoke to the problem as America's people were killed and our trade center fell and our Pentagon was attacked? That is the reality. We are doing all the right things. We are moving in the right direction. But let's make sure that as we do, we do it in a package that doesn't start collapsing segments of our industry or mistreating people who work hard for themselves and for the American economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief, but at the same time I think what we have all said is very important to this issue. The H-2B class of workers is a critical component to not just the seafood industry of our coasts but to the resort industry of our country. For any of you who have ever skied in the West and met this nice young lady or man who speaks with a Norwegian brogue and they are helping you up and down the ski lift, my guess is they are class 2B. If you have met a young man or woman waiting on tables at a resort, possibly in Sun Valley, ID, they are a class 2B. The reason they are there is because they come, they build a stable presence, they are there for the period of time our resort hospitality industries need them, and it is most important that we have them. Both Senators from Maryland have already talked about the dynamics of first that employer must seek domestic workers, U.S. citizens, and when that labor supply is exhausted they must seek elsewhere because they simply need that workforce. They come, they stay, they go home. It is a program that works well. I am going to be on the floor later debating another program that doesn't work well: H-2A. The reason it doesn't--and it used to years ago in the 1950s; identified the worker and the work necessary and the employer. We had nearly 500,000 in those days of H-2A, known only then as the Bracero Program. It was out of the great wisdom of the Congress, and it has not worked since. This one works. But what the Senator from Maryland is doing is bumping up the cap a little bit. Why? Because we have a growing economy, and we have a growing need. It isn't a static workforce; it is a dynamic workforce-- whether it is the seafood industry, whether it is the hospitality industry, or whether it is a stone quarry mining semiprecious stones in the State of Idaho to be polished and placed in the countertops of high-end kitchens of new homes across America. That is the diversity of this particular workforce. She has identified it. She has recognized it. It is a cap of 65,000. The cap for 2005 was reached on the first day of the fiscal year. That not only speaks to the need but it speaks to the reality of the problem. The amendment is very specific. This amendment would temporarily exempt returning workers who have good records and play by the rules from the H-2A cap, protect against fraud for H-2B, protect against fraud in the H-2B program by adding a $150 antifraud fee, and on and on. In other words, it has some safety checks in it, but it rewards those who play by the rules--and most do. They come, they work, they go home. That is not only ideal for our country, it is ideal for these foreign nationals who can benefit themselves and their families by coming here to work for a salary that is, of course, better than the salary they can earn in their own home country and working in conditions that meet all of the standards of our labor laws in this country. That is fundamentally what is so important. My conclusion is simply this: This amendment provides a fair and balanced allocation system for H-2B visas. Currently, many summer employees lose out as winter employers tend to be the first in line for the B's. That was already expressed, both by the Senator from Massachusetts and by others who have spoken on this issue. I strongly support the amendment. It is the right time. It needs to be done. We simply cannot wait. This is an issue that is very time sensitive. We can't wait until October to hire folks who are needed the first of May. I hope that we move it quickly through the Congress and get it to the President's desk.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield briefly, yes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his cooperation in the unanimous consent propounded that allows me the flexibility to speak. I will be brief. We are at the lunch hour. The chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on MILCON and Veterans Affairs is also on the floor with me. Let me speak for a moment about the concerns we have in relation to the Murray amendment. First and foremost, let me say for the record that in no way do I question the integrity of the Senator from Washington. She and I have worked very closely together on veterans issues. She is a valuable member of the Veterans Committee, as is the Presiding Officer. Without question, our dedication to veterans I hope is unquestioned. The reality is are we dealing with an emergency in an emergency supplemental, or is there a very real need out in veterans land and with the Veterans Administration and the systems that it funds and operates to meet current veterans' and incoming veterans' needs? I say certainly without question that there is always a need. We could expand budgets well beyond where they are today to meet needs, but by what definition? Critical, necessary, important for the moment, dealing with the most needy veterans, the most handicapped, or simply spreading it out and making it more available? Those are some of the tough choices you and I and members of that subcommittee and certainly members of the subcommittee on appropriations have to make. The Senator from Washington has appropriately challenged us to look at a variety of other aspects that have value. The question is, Are they an emergency at the moment? Do they serve veterans who are not being served? In some instances, that would be arguably yes. But are those veterans of critical service in the sense they can find health care elsewhere in the sense of priority? Let me talk briefly about what we are doing. We have just finished trying to shape through a budget resolution the 2006 budget. We included $450 million more than the President's request, and we have increased the 2006 budget over the 2005 budget by about $1.2 billion--a substantial increase by anybody's observation. We have also done that without turning to veterans in the less needy categories and saying they will have to pay more for their services. We have been able to assume and bring into the system a good deal of that, which is important. I find the number of $1.98 billion additional, not spread out over fiscal year 2006 but spent now in 2005 and the balance of 2005 in this emergency, a dramatic increase. Can the Veterans' Administration effectively and responsibly spend that kind of a bump up in money? I question that. It is important to look at what is necessary. According to VA, they have seen approximately 48,000 OIF and OEF veterans since the war began. With Senator Murray's $2 billion, it would be $41,000 per patient, an extraordinary amount by any measure.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to continue. There are three Members in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent we extend to no later than 12:45.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have given a figure of $41,000 per patient. That is an extraordinary amount by any measure. The VA's average cost per patient is about $5,000. My point in making this an issue is I want to work with the Senator from Washington. I am never going to argue that there aren't real needs in the Veterans' Administration. I am not going to argue that there ought to be some priorities--mental health and those things that the Senator from Washington and I have shared as a common interest and a common concern. Let me yield time to the Senator from Texas. She will take a few moments and give the Senator from Washington adequate time to respond before the 12:45 time. I am willing to work with the Senator from Washington, to examine her numbers, but a $1.98 billion or $2 billion bump-up to be spent before close of business in September--I am getting signals from the Senator we are dealing with a 2-year appropriation. Let's look at those numbers. I close by saying, in my opinion, there is not an emergency in the VA. This is an emergency supplemental. I will work with the Senator to see where we might go. It is wrong in an emergency to talk about things that are long term in character and necessary to finance. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. How long does the Senator plan to speak?

Mr. CRAIG. I would like to make my comments. I think we are under unanimous consent to close down at 12:30.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague, Mr. Crapo, a bill to rename a National Conservation Area in the State of Idaho after the late Morley Nelson. This bill renames it the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area. After returning home as a decorated veteran of World War II, having served with the famed 10th Mountain Division in Italy, Morley Nelson recognized the unique importance of the Snake River area for birds of prey. He worked for its protection and various designations, culminating in its establishment by Congress as a National Conservation Area. Starting in the 1950s, Morley Nelson spent decades convincing ranchers and farmers not to shoot raptors, but rather to accept them as an integral part of the ecosystem. Morley Nelson raised public awareness about birds of prey through scores of speeches with an eagle on his fist, and through dozens of movies and TV specials starring his eagle or hawks, including seven films for Disney. Morley Nelson recognized the long-standing problem with raptor electrocution from power lines and the associated power outages and even resulting wildfires. In cooperation with Idaho Power, and later with other utilities, he helped develop guards and redesigned power transmission lines to reduce raptor electrocution. This technology has since spread throughout the world. Morley Nelson once said, ``This is where the wind and the cliffs and the birds are. This is where I'll always be.'' It seems only fitting that the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area should bear his name. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague, Mr. Crapo, a bill to rename a National Conservation Area in the State of Idaho after the late Morley Nelson. This bill renames it the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area. After returning home as a decorated veteran of World War II, having served with the famed 10th Mountain Division in Italy, Morley Nelson recognized the unique importance of the Snake River area for birds of prey. He worked for its protection and various designations, culminating in its establishment by Congress as a National Conservation Area. Starting in the 1950s, Morley Nelson spent decades convincing ranchers and farmers not to shoot raptors, but rather to accept them as an integral part of the ecosystem. Morley Nelson raised public awareness about birds of prey through scores of speeches with an eagle on his fist, and through dozens of movies and TV specials starring his eagle or hawks, including seven films for Disney. Morley Nelson recognized the long-standing problem with raptor electrocution from power lines and the associated power outages and even resulting wildfires. In cooperation with Idaho Power, and later with other utilities, he helped develop guards and redesigned power transmission lines to reduce raptor electrocution. This technology has since spread throughout the world. Morley Nelson once said, ``This is where the wind and the cliffs and the birds are. This is where I'll always be.'' It seems only fitting that the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area should bear his name. 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 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 Tuesday, April 26, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to review the preparedness of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior for the 2005 wildfire season, including the agencies' assessment of the risk of fires by region, the status of and contracting for aerial fire suppression assets, and other information needed to better understand the agencies' ability to deal with the upcoming fire season. 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 Amy Millet at (202) 224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG. What was the Senator's conditioning on the second degree?

Mr. CRAIG. Including all amendments?

Mr. CRAIG. No objection.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Roberts.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a second degree of time certainty to the most important legislation of the Senator from Montana, S. 328, that was produced in bill form and now we hope can become an amendment to the State Department's authorization bill that deals with agricultural export facilitation. I speak to that most importantly because of the tremendously positive work that has been going on in agricultural exports between this country, our agricultural producers, and the Nation of Cuba. I am in complete agreement with the President when he said: Open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral imperative. When we negotiate for open markets, we are providing new hope for the world's poor. And when we promote open trade, we are promoting political freedom. Societies that open to commerce across their borders will open to democracy within their borders, not always immediately, and not always smoothly, but in good time. That was a quote in 2001. It is most appropriate today. Senator Baucus, myself, Senator Roberts, Senator Hagel, Senator Lugar, and 25 other Members of this Senate have grown increasingly frustrated with the bureaucratic effort at the Department of Treasury literally to shut down the intent of very important legislation that became law in 2000. The Trade Sanctions Reform Act recognized a need and an opportunity to sell agricultural products to Cuba for cash, that we would not ask the taxpayers of this country to facilitate. In fact, we would be very strict and very narrow in those relationships with the nation of Cuba because of overwhelming interests in a variety of other areas at that time, and it passed the Congress. That became law. That law began to work. In the course of its workings, Cuba grew from a trading partner that was the 226th largest against all of our trading partners to the 21st largest this past year. We have produced and sold nearly $1 billion worth of agricultural products to Cuba since that law became operative in 2000. It has become one part of a total of valuable tools that the agricultural community of this Nation uses in trade. Nearly 34 States have sold products to Cuba and that clearly speaks about the broad base of support that this legislation has. Somehow and for some apparently very biased reason--let me be blunt-- Cold War bureaucrats in the Department of Treasury at OFAC decided, no, we are going to change the law by regulation. We are going to squeeze and push and deny, and as a result we will collapse the ongoing trade with Cuba that is clearly within the law and within the Trade Sanctions Reform Act of 2000. What we do with this amendment offered to the State Department authorization bill, and my second-degree amendment, is very clear. We simply restate the law, the intent of the law. We want OFAC to understand what Congress's intent was. We define what a cash payment in advance is. We authorize the issuance of a general license for U.S. agricultural producers to travel to Cuba for the purpose of agricultural trade. We authorize direct cash payments to U.S. banks, cash payments. It is very important we understand that. We repeal section 211 as it relates to the 1999 Omnibus Act, and trademarks, and we clarify a variety of other issues. What is most important, and for our colleagues who support us in this effort and support the agricultural community in our country's ability to sell to Cuba for cash, we say we are for all intents and purposes reinstating the intent of Congress as expressed in the 2000 law. That is what is important here. We do not believe it is the right or responsibility of Treasury to change the rules or the name of the game or the intent of the law. That is why the Senator from Montana and I have come to the floor, for that purpose. The Senator remains on the floor and I know wants to express his concern. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 177, as Modified

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Alaska for those few moments to speak to what I believe and many of us believe to be a phenomenally important issue for the Senate to be addressing. Let me try to set the record straight. I believe it is now the noon hour, in the middle of the day. The Sun is up. The lights are on in this Chamber of the Senate. We are in the middle of a workweek. And somebody says this is not the place or the time to debate this issue? It is not midnight. It is not in a smoke- filled room. The lights are not turned down. C-SPAN is on and the American public is watching and you darned well bet this is the right place and the right time to debate a critical issue for the American people. So don't suffer the illusion or play the rhetorical game that says, ``ain't never happened before.'' The chairman of the Budget Committee has just submitted a long list of times when the other side used the budget resolution to produce major public policy. So it is the right time, the right place, the middle of the workweek; and we are doing the job of the American people, to debate this very critical and important issue. I am always amazed when someone takes the coastal plain of Alaska, where today it might be 60 below and the wind may be 40 miles an hour, and calls it an Eden. That is not my vision of Eden. I am not suggesting it is not a rare place--it is. It is unique to the world, and we recognize that, and all of the environmental safeguards are in place. If we are allowed to go there and find oil and bring it to the lower 48, there will not be any damage to the environment. That is a fact for anybody who has been there. Let us adjust the vision of Eden just a little bit. I don't think we are allowed to interpret it every way every day. My last thought is quite simply somebody said--I believe the Senator from Washington just said--it will not bring down the price of oil. It probably will not. What it might do is stop the price of oil from going up. I just paid $2.11 a gallon for regular gas in the District of Columbia. I drive a very efficient small car. It still costs me $25 to fuel it. I have the good fortune of having a pretty-good-paying job, but there are a lot of Americans who do not. Just keeping the price of oil down, not letting it go up, would be a major victory for energy policy in this country. And it would fill the refinery at Anacordis that is now operating at 50-percent capacity. It would provide the jobs in the State of Washington that the Senator from Alaska spoke to. That is the reality of what we are talking about today--getting our country back into the business of producing energy for every American, whether they have high-paying or low-paying jobs. We live on our energy and it is time we put our country back into full production. I strongly support the resolution.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Chair notify me when I have consumed 10 minutes of time?

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, we are on the floor today debating a very important portion of the budget resolution for the Senate. That is the moneys that will fund the Veterans' Administration and serve the millions of America's veterans who are in need of this service and new veterans coming in out of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. All of us who serve on that committee and examine the needs of our veterans recognize the importance of new dollars and the importance of sustaining what we have been able to do effectively over the last 4 or 5 years, to tremendously increase the quality of health care coming from the Veterans' Administration and increase enrollment. The question is, when you look at the Murray amendment versus the Ensign amendment, how much is enough? How much is enough to sustain the work and the quality of work that goes on and to accept the incoming veterans who are truly needy of and deserving of the services provided by the Veterans' Administration? Let me show a couple of charts that are fundamentally important and that many fail to recognize. Because the Senator from Hawaii is absolutely right: In 4 years we have increased spending in the Veterans' Administration by 43 percent. During that time enrollment has gone up from 4.9 million to about 7.7 million from October 1, 2000. And the quality of health care has gone right along up. Now the veterans health care facilities are rated as some of the finest in the Nation, ranking with the quality delivered from some of the top private health care facilities. Here are the numbers: Medical care, 2001, $21.07 billion; 2005, $29.64 billion, a phenomenal increase, not millions, not hundreds of millions, but billions of dollars that the American taxpayer has committed to the quality care of veterans. Let's look at the other portion of the veterans budget called discretionary spending. We have not been absent from that either. During the Bush years, 2001-2005, $25.7 billion up to $37.1 billion, again, billions of dollars. What was happening during the Clinton years? In two of those years, 1998 and 1999, the Clinton administration said: Let's cut veterans. Congress said no. Bush said no. We said no. We plused up what our President offered us. This President's budget is an increase. But we don't like the level of increase or how he has arrived at the increase. So we are changing those numbers substantially. But the bottom line still remains, how much is enough to sustain this quality, to assure the door remains open, to assure that our veterans are served effectively? Do we throw money at it or, in a tight budget environment, do we constrain ourselves a little bit? Do we shape the issues? And in so doing, do we sustain levels of increase? Here is what has happened in the last 4 years. Those are the numbers--a 43-percent increase. Probably no other area of the Federal Government has gone up that much outside of defense, and it hasn't, to my knowledge, gone up that much. But it does show a clear recognition on the part of Congress as to the importance of veterans to all of us. If I may, for a few moments, I will break down the reality of what we are doing because we recognize, as certainly the Senators from Hawaii and Washington, that there are needs out there and that those needs must be met. We recognized in the President's budget that there were items we simply would not advance--copays, a nonstarter. I was willing to look at fees for sevens and eights in certain categories with higher incomes. But collectively Congress says, at least on this side of the Rotunda, no to that also. I accept that. Here is what I recognize and here is what the Ensign amendment does. The President pluses up the budget by $751 million. The chairman's mark pluses it up again by $40 million. The Ensign-Craig-Vitter-Hutchison amendment pluses it up another $410 million, a net increase without reconciliation instructions. And that is very important. While that may be inside language for those of us who work the budget, it is very important to know that those are real dollars hitting the ground, not compromised, new money to the Veterans' Administration. Total it all up, between the President, the chairman's mark, and the Ensign amendment, and you have $1.201 billion, a 3.7-percent increase in a tight budget year. I must say, this is one chairman of what I believe is an important committee who says that is responsible. That is the right thing to do. And we don't raise taxes to do it. We go inside Government spending and find the resources. And we have offset them appropriately in an account that last year increased 12 percent. The irony is in the fact that in attempting to undo the President's proposal to charge additional fees on higher income vets, the Murray amendment charges another type of fee on veterans--and all Americans, for that matter--in the form of higher taxes. The Ensign-Craig amendment goes elsewhere inside current levels of spending. It does not do that. Yes, veterans do pay taxes. They are out there, hard-working Americans like nearly everyone else. And if you raise taxes, you raise it on them, too. I don't dispute the worthiness of the argument. I do dispute the resources involved and whether they are actually necessary in a very tight budget year when we are struggling to keep this economy alive, rewarding that economy that more money stays out there in it that stimulates job growth. And it has and it has proven that it is working because those numbers keep coming up in America as more Americans go back to work. We ought not penalize that sector of our economy while we are truly trying to help a sector of our economy that is less fortunate and, most importantly, that has served this country well. The men and women in uniform of our services, who stood in harm's way, we recognize their service but we also recognize there are limits within the budget. In those limits, we will have to say there are certain things we will do and certain things we cannot do. That is the choice, and it is a tough choice that we as Senators are asked to make when we shape budgets. But it is a necessary and a responsible choice. So we have said no to the enrollment fees, no to the copays. We have also said no to something else very near and dear to the heart of the Senator from Washington, the Senator from Hawaii, and me, and that is State homes. Those beds, 20,000 across the Nation, with 285 in my State, are a cooperative relationship between the State and Federal Government in assuring that the truly needy of our veterans have a place to go--in their final years, in many instances. The administration had asked to drop that per diem. We said no to that and ensured the stability and the strength of those homes, at a time when States' budgets are tight--certainly in many instances tighter than ours. So I believe that was the right and responsible thing to do. Last week, we heard extensively from all of the service organizations. What were their greatest frustrations? The fees, copays, and the homes. What have we done? We have taken all three of those major frustrations away because we listened to the service organizations. We heard them during that series of bicameral hearings, held both in the House and Senate. Let me go back to my original statement. The question remains, whether you are looking at the amendment of the Senator from Washington or the amendment of the Senator from Nevada, how much is enough? Is a 1.201 plus-up, with no reconciliation instructions, enough? Does it sustain this quality of health care? Yes, it does. Or do we go further by asking the American people to pay higher taxes for more money that is questionably necessary? We could throw a lot more money at the Veterans' Administration, and we might get greater results. But we would be going beyond what I think is necessary and appropriate today, and I think most of my colleagues agree with me. So we sustain the work we have done. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to support the Ensign amendment, support the work of the committee, sustain the vibrancy of the veterans health care system, and to vote down the Murray amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask what time remains on both sides?