Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, the Senator brings up a critical point. Would he cite the page and the subparagraph to the body? Clearly, the Senator is stating a charge, if you will, that is very critical and very important for all of us to understand. No one, without court order or subpoena ought to have that kind of authority.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I share the Senator's outrage. I agree that the Appropriations Committee chairman and ranking member and/or their staffs or designees do not need this authority. You heard the Finance Committee chair speak, and the ranking member has spoken; they have this authority. But in them gaining this authority, there are very real sanctions against any disclosure. I know this is an opportunity to make a substantial amount of hypotheticals. Agents are also our staffs. That is what is intended within the law, and that is what is in the law today as it relates to the Finance Committee. I agree with the Senator; this ought to come out. You heard the chairman of the Appropriations Committee say it will come out. It is now not law, nor will it become law. I think that is what is most important. Is the system broken? Yes. This represents a broken system. What is not broken about it are the keen eyes of all of us and our staffs. The ranking member of the Budget Committee and his staff have found this, so the system is not broken; it just got discovered. It is not in the dark of night; it is a dark early evening. It is 6 o'clock and we are doing the business of the country. The Senator from California is absolutely right in what she says. I am not going to play hypothetical. That is the politics I will not enter into. But I agree with her and I suggest that we can talk a great deal about this section, but it will never become law because you and I and the Senator from North Dakota, and everybody else on this floor, by a vote of probably 100-0, will not allow it to happen. I thank the Senator for his diligence.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will not object to a quorum call if it is only temporary, and I mean very temporary, so we can work out our differences. This is a very important resolution that deserves to come before the Senate. Tomorrow is National Adoption Day and the Senator from Louisiana and I find this an important priority for all Senators. With that, I will not object, understanding that Senator Feingold offers this only temporarily.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Louisiana for her leadership on this issue and on the introduction of this resolution to recognize what we believe to be a very important month and a very important day for America, for America's children, and especially for the foster care children of America. Tomorrow, November 20, is National Adoption Day. This month is National Adoption Month. Over the years, as we have worked to bring this to the attention of the American people and to people who would like to form families through adoption, we find this tremendously important. More than 3,100 adoptions of children from foster care will be finalized as a result of National Adoption Day. Of those who are in foster care, some 129,000 children wait for adoption. Senator Landrieu and I, over the last good number of years, have worked almost nonstop on this issue, not just for the foster care children of our country but for all children of our country who are seeking a permanent, loving, safe environment. As a result of that effort, she and I and others on the House side took the old congressional coalition on adoption and created the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute. That institute is now one of the sponsors of National Adoption Month and National Adoption Day. These efforts on the part of all of us, we hope, continue to build the kind of understanding and knowledge that is growing across America--that you can form a family through adoption. Adoption is a phenomenally viable option for couples who may not be able to have children naturally or who wish to expand their families, simply because they care so much about the future of children and who know that children who grow up in a safe, loving environment are going to be young people who become productive in our society instead of frustrated and oftentimes misguided in their adult efforts. What I would like to do now is read the resolution and the President's Proclamation on National Adoption Month, because I think it speaks to the kind of cooperative effort that the Congress, that Mary and I and a good many others in this Senate and the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute have, with a lot of other alliances but very importantly with the President and the executive branch of Government. This is the 2004 Presidential Proclamation on National Adoption Month, by the President of the United States: By deciding to share their hearts and home with a child, adoptive parents demonstrate great compassion and receive many blessings in return. During National Adoption Month, we recognize the generosity of adoptive and foster families who are providing hope and love, and we encourage the adoption of children of all ages. In 2002, I signed the Promoting Safe and Stable Families legislation that supports families and promotes adoption, and last December I signed the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003 to increase incentives to adopt older children. We have raised the adoption tax credit to $10,000 per child and created the AdoptUSKids website that has joined thousands of children with adoptive parents. We are working hard to place more children from foster care to permanent homes. This year, on November 20, communities from all 50 States and the District of Columbia will celebrate National Adoption Day by finalizing the adoption of thousands of children by loving families. And each one of those families will be enriched by the addition of new members. By bringing care and hope into other lives, individuals can fill their own lives with greater purpose. Now, therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2004 as National Adoption Month. I call on all Americans to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities to honor adoptive families and to participate in efforts to find permanent homes for waiting children. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth. George W. Bush. That is what our President has said. He and this administration, as have others, have worked very cooperatively with Senator Landrieu and me. Much of what we talk about and much of what the President talked about were activities and efforts initiated right in the Senate--the child tax credit and other efforts to facilitate and make easier for Americans the ability to adopt children and bring them into their homes to create that loving environment that we talk about, that we know is so critically necessary in the lives of young people as they grow up. So I am tremendously proud to join with my colleague, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, as we work cooperatively together in the passage of this resolution and as we continue to work to foster the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, to grow it. Let me close by asking all Senators to become an active member with us in the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, to participate in its activities and its purpose as we work to facilitate adoptions both here in this country and around the world. I thank my colleague from Louisiana, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I know this is a time of recognition of our retiring Members on both the Republican and Democratic sides. If I can step in for a moment, we have cleared a variety of bills to be moved at this time. I will proceed to do that.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Indian Affairs bills: Calendar Nos. 697, H.R. 2912; 777, S. 2605; 795, S. 519; 710, S. 1530; 654, S. 1996; 787, S. 1438.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments at the desk, where applicable, be agreed to, the committee amendments, where applicable, be agreed to, the bills be read a third time and passed, the title amendments, where applicable, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3014, which was introduced earlier today by Senators Snowe and Breaux.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statement regarding this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Indian Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 248 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Campbell amendment at the desk be agreed to, the resolution be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 790, S. 480.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statement relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, that concludes the unanimous consent requests at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as our colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will attest, it takes years of experience to understand some of the nuances of Federal law and policy applicable in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Yet, our current Secretary of State has shown remarkable knowledge of the sometimes complex issues arising from official international activities of local territorial governments. In responding to international issues arising from Federal- territorial relations in the case of Puerto Rico, Secretary Powell has articulated sound principles that are relevant to Federal policy with respect to the other territories as well. Specifically, the record should reflect the success of measures adopted by the Department of State to ensure that local government officials in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico do not take official actions inconsistent with the reservation of foreign relations powers to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The Department of State has tried to show flexibility and include territories in international programs and activities when appropriate, as it does in the case of other domestic political subdivisions. However, Department of State oversight and regulation of all official international activities by local territorial governments is necessary to preserve the constitutional allocation of powers within the U.S. Federal system, especially as it relates to administration of territories with a political status defined by Federal statute rather than the U.S. Constitution itself. In the case of Puerto Rico, Federal authority in all official international matters is consistent with the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act (64 State. 319), and required by the status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a territory subject to the authority of Congress under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. All powers of the local government remain subject to the supremacy of Federal law. The Department of State acted in the national interest and in the best long-term interest of our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico by not acquiescing in actions by U.S. citizen officials of the local government seeking international recognition and treatment for Puerto Rico that are reserved for sovereign nations. The Department must continue to adhere to the simple rule that the Commonwealth should not be permitted to act officially in the international sphere in a manner that would not be permitted for other political subdivisions, whether State, county, city or territorial, unless otherwise specifically provided by Congress. By confirming the correct application of Federal law and policy in his cable to our embassies, Secretary Powell has given diplomatic expression to the principles of federalism that apply to Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories. This ``Powell Doctrine'', if you will, ends the ambivalence and ambiguity that have existed about these issues for too long. The Secretary of State applied the correct legal doctrine in these matters, based on the principle that the Federal Government conducts the foreign policy of the United States and all its citizens, which includes the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico under its current status. The actions taken by the Department of State in this matter do not affect the process of self-determination as to the ultimate political status of Puerto Rico. Rather, this is a matter of confirming and in a proper manner implementing Federal powers and responsibilities beyond the realm of local politics regarding the status of the territory, until informed self-determination recognized under Federal law and policy leads to status resolution. Of course, neither local government powers nor the terms for political status resolution can be determined unilaterally by local law or political processes, because in each case Federal law is supreme and only changes in Federal law can change the status or define the extent that local governments can exercise sovereignty as to local matters. For making these realities clear, and doing so in an impartial and entirely fair way, it is appropriate to commend our Secretary of State and the men and women of the U.S. State Department.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart because it has been more than four years since the expiration of the Canadian Softwood Lumber Agreement and we have very little to show for it except a U.S. industry that is still a victim of the situation. This is an issue that I have been involved with since I came to Congress and in that time we have seen three separate disputes resulting in two negotiated agreements that have also come and gone. We are now in the middle of our fourth dispute with no settlement agreement in sight. While the two countries were close to reaching an agreement last year, little has happened since to reach a resolution. Meanwhile, with each log truck that comes across the border from Canada, another light at a U.S. timber company goes out permanently. In order to ensure a future for U.S. timber companies, I am joining Senator Baucus, in introducing the Softwood Lumber Duties Liquidation Act. Under current U.S. law, the deposits sitting in escrow are eligible for liquidation. The duties were first imposed in May 2002, when the U.S. slapped antidumping and countervailing tariffs amounting to more than 27 percent on Canada imports. The Commerce Department had determined that Canadian timber policies amounted to an unfair subsidy and led to the dumping of artificially cheap softwood lumber into the U.S. market. Meanwhile, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that the subsidies and dumped imports injured the U.S. lumber industry, warranting the imposition of tariffs. That being said, it is time that all parties come together in honest faith and work towards establishing a settlement that is free and fair in its framework. Anything less would be unjust to producers and consumers on both sides of the border. I am hopeful for a resolution. However, in the meantime, I, along with Senator Baucus, will continue to uphold U.S. laws and the determinations of our trade agencies to help ensure fair trade and protect our industries from illegally subsidized products.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart because it has been more than four years since the expiration of the Canadian Softwood Lumber Agreement and we have very little to show for it except a U.S. industry that is still a victim of the situation. This is an issue that I have been involved with since I came to Congress and in that time we have seen three separate disputes resulting in two negotiated agreements that have also come and gone. We are now in the middle of our fourth dispute with no settlement agreement in sight. While the two countries were close to reaching an agreement last year, little has happened since to reach a resolution. Meanwhile, with each log truck that comes across the border from Canada, another light at a U.S. timber company goes out permanently. In order to ensure a future for U.S. timber companies, I am joining Senator Baucus, in introducing the Softwood Lumber Duties Liquidation Act. Under current U.S. law, the deposits sitting in escrow are eligible for liquidation. The duties were first imposed in May 2002, when the U.S. slapped antidumping and countervailing tariffs amounting to more than 27 percent on Canada imports. The Commerce Department had determined that Canadian timber policies amounted to an unfair subsidy and led to the dumping of artificially cheap softwood lumber into the U.S. market. Meanwhile, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that the subsidies and dumped imports injured the U.S. lumber industry, warranting the imposition of tariffs. That being said, it is time that all parties come together in honest faith and work towards establishing a settlement that is free and fair in its framework. Anything less would be unjust to producers and consumers on both sides of the border. I am hopeful for a resolution. However, in the meantime, I, along with Senator Baucus, will continue to uphold U.S. laws and the determinations of our trade agencies to help ensure fair trade and protect our industries from illegally subsidized products.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to a serious issue--the growing number of premature births in the United States. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 480,000 babies were born prematurely--that is, born at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation--in 2002. The number of premature births in the United States increased 27 percent between 1982 and 2002. In my own State of Idaho ten percent of babies born in 2002 were preterm, and the rate of preterm births in Idaho has risen 21 percent since 1992. The preterm rate for our Native American population was 12.8 percent and 11 percent in our Hispanic community. In addition, 6.1 percent of all babies born in Idaho had a low birth weight. It is even higher for Hispanic babies--6.9 percent of them are born with low birth weight, higher than the national average. The March of Dimes has begun to address the issue of prematurity and health disparities by funding prenatal education and outreach projects in different parts of Idaho. Two projects are in our largest cities, Boise and Nampa, and target low-income and low-income Hispanic women and one outreach project is on a rural reservation. Finally, the March of Dimes is funding a smoking cessation project for pregnant women in one of our northern cities, Lewiston. The March of Dimes has declared November 16th Prematurity Awareness Day. This event is part of a 5-year plan, launched in 2003, to use the combined power of awareness, education, and research to significantly decrease the number of premature births in the United States. In Idaho this week there will be media coverage spotlighting prematurity awareness, and pink and blue street lights in downtown Boise for 2 weeks drawing public attention to the issue. In addition, many retailers will be providing free information to shoppers about the early warning signs of prematurity. Let me share the story of this year's Idaho ambassador family. During a routine medical exam, the mother of twins Morgan and Max was placed on immediate bed rest due to signs of pre-term labor. Fortunately, when Morgan and Max were born 10 weeks early, they received specialized medical care at the neonatal intensive care unit and were able to come home after just five weeks. Today they are healthy, vibrant toddlers. Thanks to research being supported by the March of Dimes, doctors are better able to identify signs of preterm labor--a life-saving factor in the case of Morgan and Max. Advances made by the March of Dimes in the treatment of premature babies--like surfactant therapy--gave these twins a good start toward a healthy life. The March of Dimes has long been a national leader in the fight for infant and child health. I commend the March of Dimes for its dedication in working toward a day when babies and their families no longer have to face the devastating consequences of premature birth.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I say thank you to a patriot and a technical expert, Mr. John Spina, who is retiring from civilian service to the Navy in December 2004. John was born and was raised in the Philadelphia, PA area. He began his government career in 1954 at the Navy's David Taylor Model Basin in West Bethesda, Maryland, as a cooperative student while attending Drexel University. He received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Drexel in 1958. John continued his Federal career at the Model Basin--now NAVSEA, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division--culminating in 50 years of diligent service to the Navy. John and his wife Rosemary live in Virginia and have been married 46 years. John's early assignments included travel to the David Taylor Model Basin's Field Station at Lake Pend Oreille in Bayview, ID where he led the initial testing at the large capacity haul down site, Wigwam, using 10-foot long rising bodies. As part of the Acoustics and Vibration Laboratory, he conducted tests on body shapes for signal devices followed by tests with a special buoyantly-propelled device. He performed extensive torpedo tests with Pennsylvania State University, using buoyant, powered rise and ``gravity drop'' methods. He also participated in towed array tests with Bell Labs and was instrumental in testing the initial core samples of the bottom of the lake in the late 1960's in preparation for the first big haul down system to be used for large model, Kamloops. John completed his master's degree at Catholic University in 1971. His work with large models and testing at the Bayview facility continued and led to the design, development, construction, and deployment of several large-scale submarine models: Steelhead, Mackinaw, S6W, Kamloops, and Dolly Varden, named after fish in Lake Pend Oreille. Unparalleled in the history of quieting, these models and the associated test programs were an immense success, contributing to the understanding and reduction of all aspects of submarine noise. The introduction of Dolly Varden provided a valuable capability for investigating noise sources and mechanisms with the economy of cost and time not possible in full scale. As test requirements and submarine quieting demands changed, these models were modified and adapted to hundreds of unique configurations, demonstrating the performance of materials and shapes for submarine applications. In the late 1980s, the Navy required powered model testing to further the science of quieting. A cooperative effort by the David Taylor Research Center and the Naval Sea Systems Command culminated in the design, construction, delivery, and successful operation and employment of the large-scale vehicle, Kokanee, in 1988. Again, John was actively involved, forming the crew, directing the logistics, and developing the operating plans and procedures. The results of the Kokanee testing offset over $1 billion in comparable full scale test and demonstrated superb prediction of full scale performance. The success and accomplishments of the Kokanee program showed that large models provide a valuable contribution to submarine development and John again led the specification, design, and development process for a second powered vehicle, the 200-ton Cutthroat model of the Virginia Class. In a parallel effort, static submarine tests also required additional test facilities and capabilities. Shortly after the deployment of Kokanee, plans were implemented for the construction of the Intermediate Scale Measurement System, ISMS. This multi-million dollar program provided a dramatic improvement in the ability to understand structural acoustics and to demonstrate advanced silencing theories and methods. While others pioneered new designs, data acquisition, and processing methods, John supported testing through the development of model handling and alteration capabilities, and an infrastructure of dedicated, trained personnel, unique equipment, and documentation of test methods that has continually improved performance and reduced costs. It is, therefore, fitting that we recognize and honor him for his years of service, months of travel, and unwavering support for the facility at Lake Pend Oreille and the Navy. John Spina has been a significant contributor to our nation's research and development in the area of quieting vessels and submarines, present and future capabilities, as well as numerous performance improvements for quieting operational and future vessels and submarines. I extend to John and Rosemary best wishes, fair winds, and following seas in their future endeavors.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for a period of 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 711, S. 2823.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, you can see by my unanimous consent request the alarm I brought to the Senate floor just now. The reason that happened is because I was attempting to bring to the floor a very critical issue that this Congress and this Senate have refused to address this year. It is a bill called AgJOBS. It is a bill that has more than 60 Members of this body as cosponsors, and yet it is a bill that nobody wants to talk about right now and nobody wants to deal with in the final hours of this 108th Congress. The reason I brought it up now, and I worked it through the Rule XIV process over the last several weeks, is because when we talk about homeland security, we are talking about border security, we are talking immigration reform, we are talking about identifying 8 to 12 million undocumented foreign nationals in this country. We have seen this Congress, this Senate, toil mightily over the last 2 weeks to try to address the 9/11 Commission's study and to reshape our intelligence community, to enhance our national security and homeland security. But this Congress has left one part of that effort unfinished. This year, we have refused to address one of the greatest problems in our country, and that is an immigration policy that has resulted in 8 to 12 million undocumented workers. For the last 5 years, I and others have tried to deal with one small aspect of this issue, those foreign nationals who come to our country in agriculture. There are about 1.6 million individuals in our agricultural work force, and most of them are undocumented. Yet they come here to work and harvest our fields and to process our foods, to allow this great agriculture of ours to be the most abundant in the world, and yet we will not give them a reasonable and legal status so they can continue to work, continue to return home across our borders with a degree of fluidity, without fear to go to their families. The current system has effectively locked them inside this country, in the shadows. We have created for ourselves a monstrous problem, and the American public knows it. It is all about homeland security, and it is all about border security, and yet, oh, my goodness, we just could not get to it this year. I have worked for several years to produce the AgJOBS legislation. It is bipartisan. Senator Ted Kennedy is my primary cosponsor, and we have worked very hard to keep it bipartisan. The numbers on the same bill have grown rapidly in the House, because this is an issue whose time has come and yet somehow we just do not have time to get to it. So I thought it was important one more time, in the waning hours of the 108th Congress, to try to bring it to the floor and at least talk a little bit about it. When I risked bringing it to the floor, my goodness, papers flew and chairs tipped over as people rushed to the microphones to object. Is it a matter of timing? Is it a matter of opposition to reform? Oh, no, it is a matter of, gee, we just do not want to talk about this issue this year. Let me serve notice to the Senate right now--I do not oftentimes do this--but when there are more than 60 Members of this body who are ready to debate an issue and vote on it, We will get a vote. With a bipartisan coalition nationwide of more than 400 groups that have come together, from the American Farm Bureau to the United Farm Workers, saying, for goodness' sake, Government, get your act together, solve this problem, create a program that moves us forward, that gives a legal status for people to work in this country who do the kind of work that many Americans would choose not to do, we will get a vote. That is what the AgJOBS is about. It means the reduction of illegal immigration by a reasonable program that allows that kind of safe, productive, economically beneficial movement in our country. Of the nearly 12 million undocumented population, the vast majority do not create or even pose any threat. They are here, they are hard working, they work 12 and 14 hours a day, and they save their money, because they want to feed their families, they want a better life for their children, they want the same opportunity that has always beckoned hard working people to America. Some of them would like to be U.S. citizens; many would not. Many want to go home to their families across the border or overseas at the end of the work season. They are here to better themselves and to better their families, something all Americans can understand. By their presence, they better us. They make our lives better, and in this issue with American agriculture, there is no question, they help to produce the abundance on the supermarket shelves and the family tables of America. When I said ``serve notice,'' here is what I am serving: I will not give up on getting a vote on this bill and passing it. The bill is ready to move now. Its time has come. I have been trying to move it this year. If we don't move it this year, when we get back this next Congress, this bill will move. We will vote on this issue. If not the old Congress, then the new Congress will face this issue. They will face it in a variety of ways. Some will say, let us do a large, all-inclusive immigration bill. Fine, while the committees are spending the 10 or 12 months or 2 years to try to figure that one out, we are going to vote on this one because it is a small piece of a very large puzzle, but it is the right piece. It will show we can cooperatively do what we ought to do in a fair and responsible way to create an earned status so these folks can work here in a legal way and can move freely back and forth across the borders, dominantly between the United States and Mexico, but clearly with other countries of the world, too. We want to eliminate these human hazards of the kind that have been created along the Mexican-American border, where last year more than 300 people died, many of them in the deserts, in the hot sun, or being smuggled in the back of trucks, trying to get here to work, because we have a program that does not function. That is why I came to the floor, and I am sorry if I caused undue alarm on the part of some of my colleagues. I was quite confident that at some point someone would object because some would argue this issue's time has not yet come. It will come. It may be January, February, or March of 2005, but it will be on this floor for a full, constructive, and positive debate and a vote up or down, possibly with the opportunity for some amendments, because this is legislation that now demands our consideration. Americans want our borders controlled. They want undocumented foreign nationals identified in our country. This is a small step in the right direction of that effort to accomplish that goal. Amnesty is not the solution. It has been tried before and it has failed. The current system has not worked either, and opposition to amnesty should not be an excuse for tolerating a dysfunctional status quo. AgJOBS avoids the problems and limitations of past initiatives and other proposals. AgJOBS is the only proposal that addresses the problem for both the short term and the long term. In the long term, when willing American workers can not be found to work in our fields, that shortage would be addressed through a reformed H-2A program. The current program is so burdensome and costly that it now supplies only about 2 percent of our farm workers. It will take time to implement reforms that allow H-2A to meet our needs with legal guest workers. In the short run, while H-2A reforms are being implemented, the earned adjustment program in AgJOBS would stabilize our current agricultural work force. Trusted, proven workers who have already been working here in 2003 and 2002 and before would be allowed to stay and continue to work. A reformed H-2A program, made workable with the red tape cut out, would meet future work force needs and mean the earned adjustment program would not have to be repeated. A realistic, workable guest worker program actually would reduce illegal immigration. The last time the United States had a substantial agricultural guest worker program, apprehensions of undocumented workers actually plummeted, from almost 900,000 in 1953 to a low of 45,336 in 1959. Whatever other aspects of this so-called ``bracero'' program were subject to criticism, history proved that its 500,000 farm workers entered our country legally, worked in jobs citizens did not want, obeyed our laws, returned home at the end of the work season, and dramatically reduced the demand for, and supply of, undocumented labor. Increased enforcement of our laws is part of the solution, and we've made progress. In the last decade, we have tripled the number of agents enforcing border and immigration laws. Worker identification checks have intensified. Apprehensions have skyrocketed above 900,000 a year and formal removals have increased sixfold. High-tech initiatives are coming online. We are poised to take up the FY 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which again increases resources in this area. However, more enforcement is only part of the answer. This is demonstrated by the fact that, despite more enforcement, over the last decade, the undocumented population has more than doubled. The self-described ``experts'' who say, ``Just round them up and deport them,'' are only proposing an excuse, not a solution, while the situation just gets worse. That is the cruelest amnesty of all. Instead, we must manage our borders and our immigration system better. AgJOBS is a critical part of doing just that--managing our borders better and improving our homeland security by bringing hundreds of thousands of individuals up out of the shadows and into a legal system. We can never neglect the humanitarian side of this, as well, that we should treat with dignity and humaneness those who labor to put the food on our families' tables. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the contribution that one of America's closest and most important allies is making to our Nation's efforts to help the Iraqi people build a safe and stable democracy. In the very public discussions that we hear every day about Iraq we often do not hear about the extraordinary efforts of the United States' closest security ally in the Asia-Pacific Region. That ally is, of course, Japan. We are all aware of the limitations that Japan has imposed on its own military since World War II. What many of us are not aware of is the actions Japan has taken to work with the United States and other nations to bring peace and stability to Iraq. One document published by the Japanese Embassy outlines the deployment of Japanese Self-Defense Forces to provide humanitarian assistance in Iraq. Many Americans would be interested to learn that there are about 1,000 Japanese troops in Iraq, including almost 600 ground troops. In addition, Japan has undertaken a very substantial humanitarian relief effort. Through the end of September, Japan's Air Self-Defense Force C-130 aircraft flew 66 missions between Kuwait and Iraq and delivered over 175 tons of relief supplies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print that paper and two others--one on Japan's very substantial financial assistance for Iraq and the other describing Japan's cultural assistance for Iraq--in the Congressional Record. Taken together, these papers demonstrate that one of America's most reliable security allies is truly dedicated to bringing stability and freedom to Iraq.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Child Safety and Home Protection Act of 2004, to provide a limited tax credit for individuals who purchase a gun safe to store firearms in their homes. Under this legislation, taxpayers would receive a 25 percent credit up to $250 for the cost of purchasing, shipping, and installing a gun safe. We have seen passionate debates in the Senate on political issues involving guns, but there is no dispute about the importance of preventing firearms accidents and theft. We all want to make sure guns do not fall into the hands of people who would mishandle them and cause accidental harm, or who intend to abuse them for criminal purposes. Responsible gun owners share those concerns and take safety issues seriously. The firearms industry has responded by offering a variety of devices designed to enhance secure storage and safe use of firearms. Gun safes have demonstrated their effectiveness in stopping unauthorized access to their contents, not only protecting valuable guns but also preventing their accidental or criminal misuse. With more than 200 million privately-owned firearms in the United States, this Nation clearly has an interest in encouraging safe gun storage. The Child Safety and Home Protection Act of 2004 serves that goal by allowing individuals to keep a little bit of their own hard- earned dollars to make a key investment in gun safety through the purchase and installation of a gun safe. I say to all my colleagues: If you believe, as I do, that the right to keep and bear arms carries with it a responsibility to use firearms safely and lawfully, I hope you will join me in supporting this important measure to promote secure gun storage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.