Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding me time at this moment. At 2 I have a special Committee On Aging hearing to chair, so I do appreciate the accommodation. Mr. President, today we are here to visit about, and I hope confirm, a good friend of mine, William G. Myers III, whom the President nominated for a judgeship to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I commend President Bush for nominating Bill Myers. I would like to spend a few moments today talking about the reasons my colleagues should vote for Bill Myers and set aside the larger political issues surrounding judicial nominations. Bill Myers was nominated by the President on May 15 of 2003 not May 15 of 2004 so it has been well over a year since the President sent up the nomination of Bill Myers. Bill is an extraordinary person, and I believe his nomination deserves our full and focused consideration. He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on April 1, 2004. Once confirmed, Bill will fill the vacancy of Judge Thomas Nelson, who became the senior judge of the Ninth Circuit. At this juncture, I would like to remind my colleagues that this is a vacant seat on the Ninth Circuit, a vacant Idaho seat we are proposing to be filled. The caseload of the Ninth Circuit judges at this moment is one of the largest in the country--as some would suggest, even overpowering and not allowing reasonable and appropriate justice to go forward simply because this seat and others are not filled and the caseload is so substantial. As my colleagues know, Federal law requires that every State within a circuit be represented by at least one judge. I believe the Senate is in danger of failing to fulfill this requirement if it prevents an up- or-down vote on Bill Myers because he will be the Idaho judge of the Ninth Circuit. A few critics of this administration's natural resource policy would have you believe Bill should not be confirmed. They have bandied about previous wrongs, if you will, but all they have demonstrated is the certainty of what? First, these critics desire to capture the judiciary by opposing nominees who do not display activist tendencies that might work to their own political advantage. In other words, if you aren't our politics and we can make an example of your politics, you are not fit to serve. We all know that judges shouldn't be involved in politics. Second, these critics have done nothing more than confirm that Solicitor Myers is the chief legal officer at the Department of the Interior, which is controversial in every administration by the very nature of the mission and the responsibility of the Solicitor at the Department of Interior. By enforcing political litmus tests against judicial nominees, some are suggesting that in order to be a nominee, you should have no experience in the law. Let me repeat that. Some are suggesting, some of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee--and you will probably hear it on the Senate floor--that it is the experience of the nominee that is giving him the problem. So are we to assume, then, that nominees should have no experience? How can they be a wise and thoughtful judge within the law if they have not had that kind of experience both in the public and private sector? Make no mistake, Bill Myers' opponents are for enforcing just this test. The substance of their test is this: If you have represented farmers, ranchers, miners, and, frankly, anyone else who advocates a balanced multiple-use policy on public and private lands in the West, the radical left environmental groups have decreed that you do not even merit a vote in the U.S. Senate. And the Democrats at this moment are playing that game: Sorry, Mr. Myers. You did your job down at Interior; you don't deserve to get a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate in an up-or-down fashion. Senators should be ashamed to enforce such an edict from those liberal interest groups. The interest groups in this instance have grabbed the power of those on the other side. That is a tragedy. Among their many factual misstatements, critics of this nomination confuse the appropriate roles of the lawyer or the judge by suggesting that because Bill Myers has been a strong advocate for his clients, he will continue to advocate for them from the bench. Of course, they offer nothing but bland or bald assertions in support of their logic. Of course, we know that as men and women come to the bench, quite the opposite happens. They have a role in the private sector to represent their clients--that is their job--or in the public sector, in the case of Bill Myers, the Solicitor to represent his client, the Secretary of Interior. Is it to suggest that he will continue to do that as a judge? Quite the opposite. Let me tell you, that is the argument we will hear today on the floor of the Senate, and that is the argument being placed. If their theory is correct, no practitioner who has ever represented committed clients in adversarial proceedings or political policy battles would be qualified to serve in the judiciary. Even so, any fears are allayed by a fair review of Bill's public service. His record as Solicitor shows balance and mainstream decisionmaking. Let me give you a few examples: opposition to trespass by inholders in national parks of Alaska, impoundment of trespass livestock on Federal lands in Nevada, expansion of a national monument in New York, support for reinterment of Native-American remains, recognition of tribal boundary rights in New Mexico, record penalties for failure of a company to pay gas royalties, and support for settlement of tribal water rights claims. I remind my colleagues that as Solicitor, Bill Myers was not a decisionmaker. He was the legal advisor to the Secretary of the Interior. In this role, as with all other roles in his life, Bill Myers has been an advocate for his clients. I see no reason to believe Bill Myers would not continue to do this as a judge. But in this situation, his client will be the law, and he will be the advocate of truth and justice. That is the responsibility of a judge. The law becomes the client. Exactly what we all want in a judge is just what I have stated. In addition, leaders in the field of law, including Democratic leaders in the West, have written to the committee supporting Bill's qualification to be a circuit judge. Letters of support have been written by the following, and all letters can be found in the committee's hearing record: Congressman Henry Hyde, Wyoming Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Kite, Idaho Democrat Senator Chuck Cuddy, Chairman Carol Dinkins for the ABA Committee on Federal Judiciary, former Democrat Governor Mike Sullivan of Wyoming, and former Democrat Governor Cecil Andrus of Idaho. In neither of these two Governors' cases can you suggest they were anti-environment. They stood for balanced use, they stood for environment, and they stood for protecting our public lands and providing reasonable and responsible management. Of course, that is why we are supporting Bill Myers, because that is how Bill Myers handled his position as Solicitor at the Department of the Interior. Democratic State attorney generals of Oklahoma and Colorado are also in support of this nominee. Is this the message we want to send to hard-working families of farmers and ranchers and miners in South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and other Western States? I hope not. I think just the opposite. I think any one Senator could review the Myers record and could go to those who now oppose him and simply say this: I have reviewed William Myers' record. I find his integrity is beyond reproach. His intellect shows he is a man who has served a variety of capacities and the law extremely well. He has a solid, well-balanced temperament that would serve him well if we put him on the bench. That is what they ought to be saying. No, today they are winking and nodding and saying to their environmental friends, we gave you one. We gave you a vote. Instead of saying, we have reviewed the record of William Myers, he is the one who deserves the vote, they are saying to the special interest votes, we gave you a vote. I hope my colleagues hear that. I hope they weigh that in their consideration of this nominee. That is not the way nominations ought to be handled in our committees or in the Senate. Tragically enough, that is exactly what is happening. Let it be said that the President of the United States has nominated a quality person. That person is William Myers. He is before the Senate now for a seat on the Ninth Circuit. He deserves our full consideration and a vote, not a political pass by. I wholeheartedly recommend we consent to this nomination. The President has treated this post well with the selection and the nomination of William Myers. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Angie Williams and Romney Hogaboam, law clerks in my office, during the consideration of the nomination of William Myers.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 40, the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, has held four hearings on the Federal Marriage Amendment. In addition, other committees have held three more hearings on the FMA. We have heard substantial and compelling testimony on the importance of traditional marriage. The time has come for this body to act. Marriage is an institution cultures have endorsed and promoted for thousands of years. It is important for us to stand up now and protect traditional marriage which is under attack by a few unelected judges and litigious activists. Last year, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts announced the Massachusetts State Constitution requires the state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Through their activism, the court ignored the will of the people and created a new state constitutional right. This violation of the democratic process calls for a response. I have special sympathy for the plight of the people of Massachusetts, because I see courts deciding cases wrongly on an all- too-frequent basis. Of the cases appealed and decided from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this term, the circuit with jurisdiction over Idaho, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned 15 while affirming 9. Judicial activism of the type we see in Massachusetts is not new, but this is a uniquely deep cut to the heart of society. We need to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment to restore the people to their proper and constitutional role as the only sovereign in our great nation. I am cautious about amending the U.S. Constitution. It has served us well for more than two centuries, and I expect it to last for centuries to come. One reason it endures is its resilience in the face of changing times, thanks in large part to its amendability. We have seen fit to amend our Constitution 27 times on 17 different occasions. Each of these has addressed an issue of importance to the people. Marriage too, is an important issue to the people. Some opponents speak of this proposed amendment as an attempt to take rights away. That is neither the purpose nor effect of S.J. Res. 40. Amending our Constitution is the way the people can correct the courts when the courts get an issue wrong. For instance, the states ratified the Thirteenth Amendment 7 short years after the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, righting the wrong of slavery that had been perpetuated by the courts. The amendments to our Constitution blaze a clear trail extending the people's right of self determination. The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments all extended the franchise to new groups. Yet what good is the franchise, if that voice falls on deaf ears because a few activist judges choose to replace the will of the people with their own? Though I am cautious about amending our Constitution, preserving the sovereign right of the people warrants an amendment and our support. My colleagues have eloquently set forth many good reasons to support the FMA and I will reiterate only one. We need to pass this amendment for the sake of children. Marriage encourages people to organize in the way that is best for those who may issue from, or enter into, that relationship, according to researchers studying family structures for raising children. This amendment does not criticize or undermine other kinds of families, but it acknowledges society's interest in promoting traditional marriage as the environment for child rearing. There are several reasons I support this amendment at this time. No fewer than 42 States have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. This amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the only way to keep this issue in the hands of the people and their elected representatives. This amendment allows the citizens of each state to establish systems to recognize same-sex relationships if they so choose, walking the appropriate line through federalism and separation of powers. My colleagues and I did not choose the time for this debate. The judicial activists of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have brought this issue to a head. Passing S.J. Res. 40 will give the people and the states the ability to protect children, bolster traditional marriage as a social building block, and preserve the role of the people as the sovereign in our political system. I encourage my colleagues to also support S.J. Res. 40.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I announce for the information of the Senate and the public that S. 2622, a bill to provide for a land exchange to benefit the Pecos National Historical Park in New Mexico, has been added to the agenda for the hearing previously scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, on Wednesday, July 21, at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics at 202-224-2878 or Amy Millet at 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to recognize Mr. Greg Cannell of American Falls, ID, for his heroic actions in saving the life of a rural mail carrier. Last December, Greg selflessly and fearlessly jumped into near-freezing waters to save a mail carrier who had skidded off a winding mountain road and into the nearby river. On December 1, 2003, Ron Meadville, a rural mail carrier, was returning from his 110-mile route along the remote North Fork road northwest of Salmon, ID. Greg Cannell and a friend, Tina Taysom, were traveling ahead of Meadville on the same road. Cannell and Taysom pulled over to look at some deer, and Meadville passed them. When Cannell pulled back on the road and rounded a bend, he couldn't see the mail truck but saw a set of skid marks that veered off the road, toward the near-frozen river. Meadville had hit a patch of ice that sent his truck hurtling over the 25-foot embankment to land upside down in the Salmon River, in more than 5 feet of 33-degree water. Greg Cannell acted immediately. He stopped his truck, jumped out, slid down the steep embankment and plunged into the river. After several strenuous attempts, Cannell was able to pull open the truck door, grab Meadville's hand, and pull him out through an opening between the seat and the doorjamb. By this time, Meadville was experiencing hypothermia. Cannell and Taysom pulled Meadville up the embankment to their vehicle. Meadville managed to tell them that he lived about a mile from where they were. Cannell took him to his home where he helped Meadville's wife care for him. Cannell refused any care for himself until he knew Meadville was safe. Greg Cannell risked his own life to save a stranger. He refuses to be called a hero, but he is truly a hero to Ron Meadville and his family. Without his courageous actions, Ron Meadville would not be alive today. Greg Cannell's actions truly were heroic and it is a pleasure for me to honor him and share his story.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have watched an unusual process this morning that a good many of us in a bipartisan spirit are reacting to, and I am one of those who do not appreciate what the majority leader has now just done. I understand why he has done it. I support the underlying legislation, S. 2062, but I also recognize that Senators, unless effectively blocked by a procedural action that has just occurred, do have the right to offer amendments, germane, relevant, and nonrelevant. I am bringing to the Senate floor one of those amendments. It is bipartisan. It has 63 Senators as cosponsors, and it is widely received by not only this body but by all of the communities of interest at large. I have approached the leadership time and again, been as courteous as I should be to my leader but assuring him that I and the Senator from Massachusetts would limit the time, that this was not to drag the bill out, that we would expedite it because we believe, with 63 Senators, Democrat and Republican, that this bill's time has come. It deals with immigration. It deals with a near crisis in American agriculture at this moment that now finds itself having to employ nearly 80 percent of its workforce as illegals, undocumented foreign nationals, in order to get the crops out of the field. We should have learned our lesson post-9/11 that we have failed mightily at the border, that we have not effectively built immigration laws that work. In a post-9/11 environment, we have learned there may be between 8 million and 12 million undocumented--in other words, illegal--foreign nationals in this country. We ought to be expediting every way possible to identify them, to do background checks on them, to control them first at the border and those who are in country in- country, and to build effective law enforcement tools, as some Senators and I are working on, to build a total package. The reason I am bringing this amendment to the Senate floor is that its time is ready. Our time is limited because we have mighty few days remaining until the end of this session. There are now 400 organizations and groups across America supporting the legislation I bring to the Senate floor as an amendment today. It is S. 1645. We call it ``ag jobs,'' and it only deals with a small segment--1.4 million to 1.5 million--of that total universe of nearly 12 million undocumented, illegal foreign nationals in our country. We have worked on the House side and the Senate side, Democrat and Republican alike. We have spent 5 years crafting this legislation, and I am extremely disappointed this morning that we do not have the opportunity to offer it, that my leader has blocked me from doing so. As kindly as I can say to my leader, ag jobs will be voted on this year. As our side has recognized the need to offer the other side the opportunity to vote on minimum wage, this issue's time has come, and this is an issue that I will stay on the Senate floor with and I will offer it unless the leader proposes in every legislation that comes to the floor the strategy he has just handed out. That is not a way to allow this body to work and work effectively, and we know it. He has been reasonable and our discussions have been substantive, but there are some who do not want immigration as an issue voted on this year. This bill is ready to be voted on. This bill has 63 cosponsors. It has 26 Republicans, 37 Democrats. It is vastly bipartisan. It has been worked on for 5 years, and 9/11 now emphasizes the importance of us doing substantive immigration reform. This is a small piece of the total picture but a critical piece to a very important segment of America's economy: agriculture. Yet we are suggesting now, by controlling our borders as tightly as we must, that we are creating a circumstance that is driving some agricultural employers and producers out of business because they cannot find the workforce. This fall, harvest should not rot in the fields of America, but in some instances it might if a viable workforce cannot be found, or if it is not this body's will to send a message to the American agricultural community that we are going to solve this problem and solve it timely, responsibly, and appropriately. We are not going to be allowed to do that today. Maybe tomorrow or maybe the next day or maybe next week, but I say to my leadership as kindly and as responsibly as I can, before we sine die the 108th session of the U.S. Congress, we will deal with this issue. Its time is now. Its time is ready. Let us--the Senator from Massachusetts and I--bring this to the Senate floor, get a limited amount of time to deal with it and adequate time for those to come to the floor of the Senate to discuss it, to oppose or to support it. That is what a responsible, deliberative body does, and that is what we must do in this instance. So I hope that at some point the message I am delivering at this moment registers with my leadership that we will vote on this issue this year. It is important that we do so and send a message to the most critical segment of our economy that we are going to work with them to get legal employees, that we are going to legalize a process, control a process, do the background checks, get the bad actors out of the system instead of simply turning our back again and again. Our President wants reform. He has spoken openly and boldly about it. It is important we bring this reform. I agree with my President. Its time has come. Let us deal with it. I will be back on the Senate floor today, tomorrow, next week, or the balance of this month, until this issue is debated. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this late afternoon to stand in support of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2004. I thank my colleagues, especially Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, and a Senator who has been a champion of the reform of this particular provision of law in our country for a good number of years. When working properly, class action lawsuits are an important part of our civil judicial system. The whole idea behind class actions is to promote the efficient, effective administration of justice by allowing for the consolidation of numerous, but identical claims brought against one defendant. When working properly, these lawsuits provide relief to a large number of people who have been victimized--when working properly. But our current class action system is not working properly. The class action system is uniquely ripe for abuse. In normal litigation, plaintiffs who have been injured seek out an attorney to redress their grievances. In class action litigation, this process is reversed--lawyers are appointing themselves as counsel to a group of people who may or may not feel victimized. This designated victim may not only be unaware he or she is even part of a lawsuit, this person might be perfectly satisfied with the product or service that is the subject of the litigation. Even when a large group has suffered an injury, the lawyers are often the real winners, as they are able to secure large fees while their clients receive coupons of little or dubious value. A serious need for this legislation has also resulted from the actions of a few rogue State courts. Diversity jurisdiction was established to facilitate commerce by ensuring that claims brought against interstate businesses would be heard in Federal court, so as to avoid local biases. The Framers foresaw the potential chilling effect that could occur on commerce if out-of-State businesses were forced to defend themselves in front of State court judges, who have a greater potential to ``play favorites.'' The Framers realized this in 1787. Today, we live in an advanced technological age, where interstate business occurs at the click of a button, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Certainly, the Framers' efforts to ensure the fairness of claims brought against out-of-State defendants is no less important today; and, at the very least, commerce still deserves the amount of protection our Constitution already provides. However, under current law, a class action involving thousands of residents from all 50 States and millions of dollars does not qualify for access to Federal court. The Class Action Fairness Act resolves this problem by ensuring that truly local disputes will be litigated in State courts, while interstate class actions, involving national issues, will be heard in Federal court. S. 2064 will go a long way toward ensuring the intent behind the establishment of class actions is followed. S. 2064 will do this by reforming the diversity rule applicable to class actions in order to provide greater protections for consumers by curbing class action lawsuit abuses, which are enriching lawyers at the expense of consumers. S. 2064 is in line with our idea of justice and fairness. As set forth in Article III of the Constitution, the Framers established diversity jurisdiction to ensure impartiality for all parties in litigation involving persons from multiple jurisdictions, particularly cases in which defendants from one State are sued in the local courts of another State. Interstate class actions--which often involve millions of parties from numerous States--present the exact concerns diversity jurisdiction was designed to prevent: the potential for local prejudice by the court against out-of-State defendants or a judicial failure to recognize the interests of other States in the litigation. This act is not about protecting ``big business,'' as some critics claim. Rather, it is about protecting the rights of workers and consumers. I come from the great State of Idaho, where the need to attract new industries is important to our largely rural economy. If a business cannot be sure of the liability it might face in the event of litigation, it will be more reluctant to leave its State of incorporation. And, when litigation costs become too unpredictable, the effect will be to dissuade investment. Or, worse yet, businesses will converge on a few select States, whose laws are most favorable to corporate interests--not only clogging the dockets and slowing down justice in those courts, but providing business opportunities in only a few select areas. This is not good for anyone. Under the Class Action Fairness Act, the exact type of cases that should be heard in Federal court--cases involving issues of national importance--will be heard in Federal court. While, a case between two citizens from different states, with no national significance, will be left to the State courts. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation. Finally we have a bipartisan bill on the floor of the Senate and it is ready to be debated, ready to receive amendments, ready to be voted on. It is exciting when work of this kind reaches that, if you will, supermajority status that finds both Democrats and Republicans in support of it. There are some 60 cosponsors, I understand, of this critical legislation. Much has been said about it this afternoon, both pro and con, but the reality is we have a system that has been largely abused and misused and clearly one our Founding Fathers put within the construct of our judicial system to provide a fairness element to all of those in the broad context that class action addresses, not to be victimized by the system but to be served by the system. I hope we can find ourselves a way, through the course and process of the Senate rules, to allow an amendment, amendments, and ultimately final passage on this important legislation. I was on the floor earlier this morning when our majority leader was attempting to work out a satisfactory process by which we could debate and bring resolution to this important legislative agenda. But I was one of those who had an amendment on the floor, ready to go, that was not specifically germane to class action. Strangely enough, it is in itself a bipartisan piece of legislation, having now garnered the support of some 63 Members of this Senate. It deals with some element of immigration reform, specifically in the area of agriculture, dealing with substantial reform in the H-2A designated immigrant, or I should say worker, as it relates to agriculture. Here we have two pieces of legislation worked on for many years by our colleagues here in the Senate, one the class action legislation with 60-plus cosponsors, my agriculture jobs legislation with over 63 cosponsors, and somehow we can't seem to get the process working in a way that would allow us to vote on these up or down. I was certainly willing to offer my amendment and to seek a time limit of 4 or 5 hours to debate it, to allow Members to come to the floor and possibly amend it or to offer amendments and withstand the judgment of their colleagues as to whether those amendments were worthy in shaping or reshaping or transforming legislation that 62 other colleagues and I wanted on the floor for the purpose of debate and consideration. That is also true of the class action legislation. We have heard a great deal today about the pros and cons of the legislation, S. 2062, that is before us. The great tragedy we are now facing is the process and/or the procedure may disallow an up-or-down vote on class action. There is a strong effort on the part of my leadership to block my effort in coming to the floor with a strongly developed bipartisan piece of legislation to address that also. Does the public become confused by this effort? I suspect they might, and that is difficult as we attempt to work out the differences and allow these kinds of issues to come to the floor. I am prepared to vote on class action. I am prepared to support the legislation, the underlying bill that is now on the floor. I also hope my colleagues will seriously consider that a time is necessary to deal with an immigration reform policy. Although it is not a whole cup, although it does not address the universe of undocumented foreign immigrants in this country, it deals with a very critical part of America, American agriculture, that now finds it must seek its workforce in a way that allows it to become nearly 80 percent undocumented because the law is so restrictive and prohibitive and cumbersome and bureaucratic that the average agricultural producer simply cannot identify with it in an appropriate timeline to harvest his or her crops. They seek employment from people who want to come here and work. Not American citizens. American citizens don't do that kind of work anymore. They are, if you will, an economic cut above it. Or they have a social program that simply allows them a sustenance or a lifestyle in which they don't need to seek that kind of employment. But there are now about 1.5 million undocumented workers in this country who are employed by American agriculture, who harvest our crops, who bring them into the process, and who ultimately help get them to the supermarket shelf. Yet we cannot in a responsible, legal fashion deal with them. That is why I spent the last 5 years working with a vast array of people, both House and Senate, to fashion this legislation. That is why it now has 63 sponsors. It is why it now has over 400 groups nationwide, from the National Farm Bureau to the United Farm Workers Union to the AFL/CIO to the National Nurseries Association, that say it is critical this legislation pass. We have producers, agricultural producers in our country today who are finding it so difficult to gain the necessary employees to do the work in the field or in the processing sheds that they are contemplating--and some have already made the decision--to go out of business. Where does that production go? Offshore, out of the country to Chile or Peru or someplace like that instead of happening in the valleys and in the farm fields of America. Why can't we solve this problem? Some say it is too political. I suggest it is not political at all. It is time that we lead, that we solve it, that we address the issues, that we create a system that allows people to come to our country to do certain kinds of work and to go home--to do it in a legal, open, transparent way while we can effectively control our borders as we should as a great nation, and at the same time for those who are illegal we ought to be able to apprehend them and remove them from our country. But to do the first or the last without something in the middle that creates an effective, responsible avenue and workforce is simply irresponsible. That, in essence, is what we have created. What happened after 9/11? We rediscovered all of this vast array of immigration law in our country that doesn't work. We have between 8 and 12 million undocumented people in our country. I say shame on us for having allowed that to happen. You solve the problem, you control the border. Great nations maintain their integrity by controlling their borders. Great nations maintain their integrity by creating a civil process on the inside that effectively works. Great nations maintain their integrity by apprehending those who are violators of the law and treating them accordingly. In this instance, and in those examples or situations, we are not doing either. I proposed--and 62 of my colleagues agree--a piece of legislation that is most critical to our country and to a segment of our economy. I brought it to the floor this morning willing to stand it alongside this important piece of legislation, willing to limit the debate on it so that we can facilitate the process and move this through. And I surely thought the underlying bill with 60-plus cosponsors, and my amendment with 63, ought to be something that can come together. Apparently it can't, or it won't. I am here this evening to tell my colleagues we ought to be debating and voting on this important piece of class action reform legislation, and we ought to be voting on agricultural jobs. We ought not simply put it off. Those who are the critics of it, who have no alternative, simply want us to, as we have done for two decades, turn our backs, look over our shoulders, say, Oops, there is a problem, while in many instances these human beings are treated inhumanely, while over 350 of them died at the United States-Mexican border this past year, while we simply say, Oh, well, it is so complicated we cannot solve it. I suggest we can. I suggest it is ready to be solved now and that many of us have worked to accomplish that. I hope our leadership can work with the other side and work out our differences and get a unanimous consent agreement that shapes the time and moves this legislation forward. We ought not have lawyers working the legal system to simply benefit their pockets while the citizens who may have been harmed get little or nothing but a meaningless coupon of dubious value. That is not the appropriate way for our legal system to work in this country. And that is why Senators Grassley, Carper, Chafee, Dodd, Hatch, Kohl, Landrieu, Lugar, Miller, Schumer, Specter, and a good many others believe that S. 2062 ought to become the law of this land. I hope by tomorrow we will have resolved this important situation in a way that allows us to move forward in a timely fashion and allow the American people to see where we stand on these critical issues. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President. It is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the Oinkari Basque Dancers for their dedication to the arts and culture of their great heritage. The Basques have a long, proud history in the State of Idaho, which is home to the largest concentrated population of Basques outside of their native country. The first Basques began arriving in Idaho around 1890, the same year Idaho achieved statehood. Since then, the Basques have become an integral part of Idaho's unique identity. While citizens of Basque decent exist in each of our 50 States, the presence of the Basque culture is perhaps most evident in Boise, ID, a hub of Basque cultural activities and home to the Basque Center, the Cenarrusa Center for Basque Studies, and the Basque Museum and Culture Center. Boise also hosts the Jaialdi Basque festival, which attracts visitors from around the world. One of the most notable activities for young Idaho Basques is the preservation of their unique music and dance. The Oinkari Basque Dancers are an excellent example of this dedication to dance, music and education. This group of young Basque Americans was founded over 40 years ago to preserve and perform the unique folk dances of their Basque heritage. Their traditional dances have been taught to hundreds of young Basques over the years. These dedicated young people have traveled nationally, including here in our Nation's capital, and internationally to perform their dances and act as good will ambassadors of the American West. Their travels have included trips to the Basque country where they performed alongside native Basque dancing groups. The Oinkaris also perform for local charities, hospitals, nursing homes and centers for the disabled to share their culture and talents with others. They have entertained people from the State Fair to the World's Fair and never failed to impress an audience. There are many talented individuals responsible for the Oinkaris' many accomplishments, but I believe there is one who deserves special recognition. The dancers are led by the music of Jim Jausoro, a founding member of the Oinkaris. ``Jimmy'' Jausoro has received numerous cultural honors, including the National Heritage Award from National Endowment for the Arts. Under his tireless leadership, the Oinkaris have grown and developed into an elite dance group who represent their ancestry in the true spirit of dance and music. For their dedication to arts, I am pleased to call Idaho the home of the Oinkari Basque Dancers, and pleased to honor them today.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 21, at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 738, to designate certain public lands in Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Lake, Napa, and Yolo Counties in the State of California as wilderness, to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, CA as a wild or scenic river, and for other purposes; S. 1614, to designate a portion of White Salmon River as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 2221, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange certain National Forest System land in the State of Oregon, and for other purposes; S. 2253, to permit young adults to perform projects to prevent fire and suppress fires, and provide disaster relief on public land through a Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps; S. 2334, to designate certain National Forest System land in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and S. 2408, to adjust the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in the State of Montana. 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 2 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. permanent subcommittee on investigations

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 14, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 2317, to limit the royalty on soda ash; S. 2353, to reauthorize and amend the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992; H.R. 1189, to increase the waiver requirement for certain local matching requirements for grants provided to American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other purposes; and H.R. 2010, to protect the voting rights of members of the Armed Services in elections for the Delegate representing American Samoa in the United States House of Representatives, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Dick Bouts at 202-224-7545, Kellie Donnelly at 202-224-9360, or Amy Millet at 202-224-8276.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Defense Authorization Committee for his cooperation and the ranking member for allowing Idaho and Washington and South Carolina to resolve what was and has been, at some points along the way, a contentious issue. But foremost, I thank my colleague from Idaho, Mike Crapo, for the diligence that he has put into making sure that Idaho remains whole in its agreement, that Washington remains whole in its agreement, and that South Carolina be allowed to gain an agreement with the Department of Energy, and, if you will, to wipe away the fog that had been created by a court decision that did not, in the opinion of the Department of Energy and the OMB, allow them a clear path forward to continue to spend money for the purposes of cleanup. We think this language allows that clear path forward while allowing the State of South Carolina to arrive at an agreement different from that which the State of Idaho or the State of Washington has. I agree, the language is not precedent-setting. Idaho is still very whole in the relationship it has currently with the Department of Energy. My goal, and the goal of the other Senator from Idaho, Mike Crapo, has always been to assure that cleanup goes forward without a hitch, and this language will allow that to happen, for the $90-plus million that was dedicated to cleanup in Idaho for this coming year to be allowed to be applied for that purpose. We think that is critically important as we move down this path. We have worked closely with the State of Idaho. We think this does meet the concern of the State of Idaho. They have vetted this language and understand it clearly. We hope we have now resolved any question anyone might have as to Idaho's role and primacy as it relates to its relationship with the Department of Energy for the purposes of cleanup. I say to the chairman, thank you for your willingness to be flexible as we have worked out these difficulties. I appreciate the positions and concerns of the Senator from Washington. We hope this language keeps Washington as whole as we believe it does and as we believe it keeps Idaho, while allowing the State of South Carolina to proceed down a path that could be somewhat different from that which we might choose. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to review the grazing programs of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, including permit renewals, recent and proposed changes to grazing regulations and related issues. The hearing will also examine the Wild Horse and Burro program, as it relates to grazing, and the Administration's proposal for sage-grouse habitat conservation. 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.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have, for the last day, listened to a good number of my colleagues reminisce about the late President Ronald Reagan, many of them quoting from his speeches, many of them quoting from books written about him, about his phenomenal life, and his phenomenal presence in this city as one of our Presidents. So I would guess that by this moment nearly everything that can be said about Ronald Reagan has been said but, then again, not everyone has said it. I find myself in that situation in these moments just prior to the adjournment of the Senate and hours before a coffin bearing President Ronald Reagan will arrive at the Rotunda of our great Capitol. What I might do for just a moment is reminisce about a couple of personal experiences I had the privilege of having with the late President that, to me, speaks volumes about the gentleman's personalty, his style of Presidency, and what he meant to my State of Idaho. Idaho, by its conservative character and its independence, was always a strong Reagan State. It spoke out loudly for the President. It voted in large numbers for the President. There was never a question where Idahoans would be when it came to supporting Ronald Reagan for his Presidency. My relationship with him began at the very time he came to Washington. I was a freshman in the House of Representatives in the winter of 1981. Both President Reagan and I were elected at the same time. I was one of those of the large class of 54 Republican freshmen who entered the U.S. House, many of them because of the strength of Ronald Reagan, and we all became known as ``Reagan babies.'' I suspect that is a title that at the age of 58 I still bear with some pride. Because we came at a time when we had a President who was speaking of change; and the American people were wanting it, demanding it, and his Presidency embodied it. The situation I want to relate for the record this afternoon occurred during the first budget process of the Reagan administration. David Stockman, a Congressman, had just been appointed Director of OMB. Of course, the major tax cut that our President was so well known for-- that began to stimulate the economy and turn the American people back into entrepreneurialism--was all at hand. But there were deficits. So David Stockman came up with the idea that we should sell off our strategic minerals stockpile. Well, that is something you do not hear talked about hardly at all today, but following World War II, Congress had passed legislation saying that we should stockpile silver and magnesium and titanium and zinc and a variety of other metals in case we got in another war, so we would have these supplies of metals available for industrial purposes. By 1981, it was largely determined on the part of the Reagan administration and David Stockman that they were just not necessary any longer. It was probably true that some Members of Congress believed the same thing. So when the announcement of the sale of these stockpiles became public--and the money then from their sale was to return to the Treasury, and that money would offset some of the deficits that might occur as a result of the tax cuts--the silver market plummeted. The price of silver on the world market dropped because the large supply of silver being held by our Government was going to enter the market at some point. So the market out there was beginning to adjust and prices fell. Because Idaho at that time was a primary silver producer, not only did prices fall in Idaho, but when they fell, many of our mines closed. There were 400 or 500 miners--men and women--out of work in the Silver Valley of Idaho, known as the Coeur d'Alene mining district, that was in part a direct result of this announcement. I was a freshman Congressman. That was my congressional district. I had people out of work. This was largely still an old line labor Democrat stronghold in north Idaho, and the hue and cry was very loud. These men and women were out of work because of President Ronald Reagan. I had thought that if Ronald Reagan really understood the impact of what he was doing, he might change his approach. But because it was a directive from OMB, because it was a part of the budgetary policy of this administration, my small voice simply was not getting heard. I appealed one evening in a conversation to the then-Secretary of the Interior, Jim Watt. I said: Secretary Watt, how do I get to the President? How do I tell my story, our story, Idaho's story, about this particular problem? He said: Well, Larry, you have to get to the President directly. Obviously, David Stockman is not interested in hearing your story. The sale of the strategic metals, the sale of the stockpiles, is his idea. He's not going to be your champion. So if you're ever down at the White House, see if you can get the President's ear. Well, freshmen Congressmen do not often go to the White House. But because of the key tax votes that were coming up, I got invited to the White House to visit with Ronald Reagan. I had presented on one, small sheet of paper, on one side, a very brief, clear explanation of the impact of the sale of the silver stockpile out of the strategic metals stockpile on the people of Idaho. I put it in an envelope, and wrote across it ``To President Ronald Reagan,'' and stuck it in my pocket. Now I am down at the White House and conversations go forward. At the end of the conversation, I say: Mr. President, here is a note I would like to have you read. It's important to my people in Idaho. By your actions, you have put 500 Idahoans out of work. He said: Really? I said: Yes, selling off the strategic metals. He smiled and said: We are? Well, that did not surprise me. The longer I am here in Washington, I know not everybody knows every detail about everything. That is why you hire and have around you competent people, and Presidents are certainly no different than many of us. He kept the note. I saw it go into the breast pocket of his suit coat. A day and a half or two later, I got a call from the White House saying: Congressman Craig, can you come down and visit with the President about your problem in north Idaho and the sale of the silver stockpile? My, I was impressed. I went to the White House. There in the Oval Office was the President and David Stockman, the Director of OMB, the man who had established the policy of selling off the stockpiles to bring money to the Treasury. We discussed it at length. In fact, David Stockman and I had a small debate in front of the President about the pros and cons of doing so. What I said at that time was: Mr. President, I am not opposed to you selling off the stockpile of silver, but it's how you are approaching it, and how you are approaching it has had a dramatic impact on the market. As a result of that, it has dropped the price of silver worldwide, and men and women in Idaho are now out of work. He said: Well--in his inevitable way--let me think about that. A week later, there was a very small but very important announcement that no longer would there be any more sale of the silver stockpile, and, of course, the prices came back and the men and women in north Idaho went to work. What is the message? The message is that when this President, Ronald Reagan, understood the impact of an action--if it was hurting people or impacting them adversely, or if it was doing something that was against his market ideas and his philosophical belief in limited government and that government should not be the arbiter nor should government infringe upon the well-being of citizens--he would make changes. And he did. And of course, I have told that story many times in Idaho. It was very clear to Idahoans that the market changed because Ronald Reagan saw what he was doing or saw what his administration was doing and was willing to make a very important change to impact people's lives. Lastly, I remember coming to the U.S. Senate in 1990, certainly after President Reagan had left this city. The first office I took in the Hart Building had on a conference wall a very large map of the world. It filled the whole wall, and it still had the Socialist Republics of the Soviet Union written across that map. That will tell you how old it was in 1990. I remember at the time looking at that map and saying: Thank you, Ronald Reagan. You have made that map of the world obsolete. You as the President--not single-handedly but certainly by the force of your beliefs and by the force of your efforts--have made the Soviet Union obsolete in such a way that it simply withered and died, almost without a whimper. And that, of course, is one of the great legacies of our President, and many of our colleagues have spoken about that. We are not going to let revisionist historians suggest that the Soviet Union would have crumbled anyway. There was a reality they had to face. The reality was Ronald Reagan and the national resolve of this country in the cold war, built on the strength and the beliefs of a great President by the name of Ronald Reagan, that we not only could overcome communism but we would, in essence, arm ourselves and build a military ready and capable of defeating the Soviet Union. That combination of efforts, put together with his willingness to deal with Gorbachev and others, obviously changed the dynamics of world politics and the environment I grew up in as a child, known as the cold war. I will attend the ceremony in the Chamber tonight, and I will mourn the loss of Ronald Reagan. But more importantly, I will celebrate. I will celebrate a great President, a President who came to our country's call at the right time in our history, to lead us with optimism and enthusiasm and vision in a way few Presidents have. So while I will certainly miss the presence of the man, I celebrate his record and the history that will be written about him. I send my prayers and the prayers of my wife Suzanne to Nancy Reagan and all of the Reagans. They stand with a great legacy they are obviously very proud of, as we all are as Americans. To Ronald Reagan I say: Thank you, you built a place in history that is well deserving of the actions you took as President of the United States. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Has the 5 minutes been used that the Senator requested for debate?

Mr. CRAIG. I ask to speak for up to 2 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will take but a few moments because the Senator from Washington is on the floor to debate her amendment. It is an important and serious amendment she brings, but what she has refused to allow Idaho to do this morning, by objecting to the unanimous consent request of Senator Crapo, is to deny Idaho and Washington the right to assure that the legislation that was passed is not precedent setting to the agreements Idaho and Washington now have. In 1995, Idaho's Governor Phil Batt, with my assistance, negotiated a milestone agreement with the Department of Energy on the cleanup and removal of nuclear waste in Idaho. After that agreement was in place, I teamed with the then-Senator, now Governor, Dirk Kempthorne, to codify that agreement into law as a provision in an annual Department of Defense authorization. What Senator Graham of South Carolina has done Idaho did in 1995. That became the basis for Idaho to operate and in large part then for Washington to proceed to begin the cleanup of a very serious problem the State of Washington has at Hanford. Certainly, the Senator from Washington and I, and my colleague from Idaho, recognize the complexity and the seriousness of this problem. That is not in dispute. When DOE then asked to change and modify some of those relationships, a judge said, no, you cannot do that without a rulemaking process. DOE has determined to go ahead with that, but up until then they have said, their attorneys have said and the attorneys at OMB have said, you do not have a clear path forward to cleanup. Idaho disagrees and Washington disagrees. At the same time, DOE does not plan to spend the money, denying us the cleanup we expect and we believe is under the milestone agreement crafted by Idaho, accepted by DOE, and accepted by this Senate in 1995. What the Senator from Idaho tried to do, and the Senator from Washington refused to allow him to do, which is very frustrating to understand, is to assure any action taken today that South Carolina would want to take, that their Governor, their attorney general and their environmental agencies want to take, is no way precedent setting against the court agreement or against the Idaho relationship and agreement Governor Batt crafted and that the State of Washington has. Is that confusing to anyone? Well, it should not be. There are fairly clear lines out there. I do not understand why we are not allowed to clarify that at this moment. If we cannot, then we will clarify it in other ways over the course of the action on this bill. There are a variety of vehicles we can take because it is paramount that we, as we think we have, assure our State agreement is in place, and most importantly that DOE can move forward in this fiscal year to spend some $97 million in cleanup they are now saying they cannot do because the advice from their attorneys and the advice from OMB is not to spend; they do not have a clear path forward. We believe the legislation offered by Senator Crapo offers that clear path forward, and clearly that is the direction we want to go, to assure Idaho's agreement, to assure Washington is on firm ground but, most importantly that we do not lose 12 or 14 months of cleanup and that the $97 million slated to head to Idaho drifts off and is spent somewhere else, along with the cleanup money for Washington being spent somewhere else. We want it on the ground at Hanford. We want it on the ground at the INEEL in Idaho Falls doing what DOE and Idaho and Washington are proceeding to do. At the same time, I cannot, nor will I, step in front of a State that has worked its way through its process and believes it is on safe ground to move forward with its cleanup. There are some five tanks in South Carolina to be cleaned up. Others are being cleaned up now. I am sure South Carolina wants that process to go forward. We all know in a rulemaking process, and the vetting that goes forward in a rulemaking process, we may well be 24 months away from that kind of a decision once the rule is made, once it is tested, once it is aired in the public and, I am quite confident, once two or three lawsuits are filed against it. Idaho does not have that kind of time, nor does the State of Washington, nor does the State of South Carolina. We want cleanup. We want cleanup now. And we want it to meet the standards under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. We believe what we are doing offers that, profoundly. Now we are here to debate what the Senator from Washington and I believe is a disagreement between the two of us. I don't disagree with all of her bill. I certainly support parts of it. But what I do disagree with is that the State of Washington or Idaho or South Carolina or any one of the sovereign 50 States of our Nation cannot sit down with a Federal agency, under Federal law, and craft an agreement that gets them to the appropriate cleanup, acceptable by the environmental community in South Carolina, by their Governor, by their attorney general. That is exactly what Idaho did in 1995, exactly what Idaho's Senators, myself and then-Senator Dirk Kempthorne, brought to this Senate floor and brought to the Defense authorization bill--and this Senate passed it. Why should we deny or refuse those kinds of State relationships? Does the Federal Government in all instances totally dominate as long as the State is within the construct of the law, the Federal law that governs nuclear waste, because that is within the sole jurisdiction of the Federal Government. We all understand that. I don't think so. I think South Carolina did what they felt they needed to do. DOE agrees with them. Now, by action, a voice vote of this Senate, the Senate agrees with them. Let's affirm that, protect the State of Washington and protect the State of Idaho, make sure their agreements are what we want them to be, and move forward. The Idaho Governor and the Idaho congressional delegation stand united in that position and in that opinion. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Simple Tax for Seniors Act. This bill would allow seniors age 65 and older with Social Security and pension income to file a short form similar to the 1040EZ Internal Revenue Service form. Under current IRS rules, millions of Americans are prohibited from using the 1040EZ short form simply because they are age 65 or older. Many currently file using only the standard deduction. The Simple Tax for Seniors Act would crate the new 1040S form, allowing seniors who receive pension income to avoid filing the burdensome and complicated itemized deduction forms. As many as 11 million seniors would be able to file in the first year, in less time, on a simplified, two-page form. Seniors no longer would be forced annually to disclose more information on their retirement savings and pension plan than necessary. The Simple Tax for Seniors Act makes no change in the tax code itself, so taxpayers using the new form would pay the same amount as under Standard Form 1040. This is common sense legislation. It is a win for seniors because it will make life easier and it is a win for taxpayers since it will cost less to process the new form. It is also non-controversial. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed similar legislation by a vote of 418-0. I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this sensible legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear with this statement 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 originally scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Wednesday, June 16th, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, has been indefinitely postponed. The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on: 1. the grounding of multi-engine fire-retardant aircraft, 2. steps the Forest Service and Department of the Interior have taken to provide alternative aerial support for initial attack and extended attack fire fighting operations in the short run, and 3. the feasibility and desirability of designing and implementing an inspection process to allow the use of multi-engine fire-retardant aircraft in the future. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics at 202-224-2878 or Amy Millet at 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, more than 60 years ago a generation of Americans answered the call to service, leaving their daily lives and joining the fight in a world war that would dramatically change the way this country, and the world, conducted itself. Raised during the Great Depression, this ``Greatest Generation'' would have such a profound impact on our history that is almost impossible to overstate. Their legacy is formidable and lasting. Almost six decades later, we are finally paying full tribute to those men and women, and this generation, who served and sacrificed their lives in defense of this great Nation and who ultimately saved the world from tyranny and tyrants. No doubt, those men and women and their triumph over evil have served as a stark reminder and inspiration to the men and women in uniform who have followed in their permanent footsteps. However, the presence of this generation was not limited to the islands of the Pacific or the beaches of Normandy; it was also displayed by those who remained in this country to mobilize the home front during and after the war. No one can question the hard work and dedication this generation embraced that ultimately pushed this nation to the position of global economic, military, political, and social leadership we still maintain today. Almost overnight, America moved from isolation to a country of engagement. Having learned this lesson well, America remained engaged with the world after the war, struggling against the advance of communism, and ultimately winning that battle. I am proud of the role the citizens of my state played in these struggles, and as such, I would like to take a moment to honor those Idahoans who served and to those who lost their lives as a result of World War II. Their strong commitment and dedication to their state and to our country has not and will not go unnoticed. I am reminded of a saying, ``For your tomorrow, we gave our today.'' This statement embodies what this generation gave; but words can't fully describe what the soldiers and survivors of WWII contributed to this nation, during and after the war. That contribution changed the course, not only of our Nation, but of the entire world. We continue to see the repercussions of it today, and to be honest, I believe the effect will continue to be felt long after all of us are gone. The official motto of Idaho is ``Esto Perpetua,'' meaning ``May it last forever.'' Well, the same could probably be said of the influence of this generation on America. Still, despite playing such a profound role in American history, until this year, there was no monument or memorial in our Nation's capital that honored the sacrifices of all World War II veterans. We have monuments and memorials for Vietnam and the Korean War, as we should. Just across the river in Arlington, there is the Iwo Jima Memorial which honors the U.S. Marines who served in World War II. It is a beautiful and fitting commemoration of the leathernecks' service in that conflict but just that branch, not all the services. This Memorial Day, we will dedicate, at long last, the National World War II Memorial on the National Mall. I believe it is fitting that the memorial should take its place alongside Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington, in the place our nation comes to remember and honor the greatest deeds in our great history. I thank our veterans for their service, for guaranteeing my freedom and those of all Americans, and I wish them a Happy Memorial Day.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 16, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on: (1) the grounding of multi-engine fire-retardant aircraft, (2) steps the Forest Service and Department of the Interior have taken to provide alternative aerial support for initial attack and extended attack fire fighting operations in the short run, and (3) the feasibility and desirability of designing and implementing an inspection process to allow the use of multi-engine fire-retardant aircraft in the future. 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 202-224-2876.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, regulations applying IDEA are complex, and I applaud the work of my colleagues in trying to make these regulations a little easier for students, parents, and schools. This bill is a clear signal that the Senate is concerned about the welfare of our children with special needs. S. 1248 helps our students by providing early access to services and support while working to reduce the misidentification of nondisabled children. This bill aims to make things easier for parents by allowing parents and schools to make changes to a student's individualized education plan, IEP, without calling an entire IEP meeting. S. 1248 should also help to relieve the burden on schools that are often associated with special education regulations. It includes provisions to improve discipline and school safety, reduce paperwork, and simplify funding for grants to State agencies. Mr. President, as you know, when IDEA was signed into law, Congress committed to contribute up to 40 percent of the costs associated with special education. We have failed miserably in this. One important provision in this bill is a plan to authorize the Congress to fund its 40 percent portion completely by the year 2011. I am pleased to report our success in the Senate and pledge my commitment to seeing the Federal Government contributes its full share.

Mr. CRAIG

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