Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Let me thank my colleague from Louisiana. She and I have worked so very closely together over the last several years to move the issue of adoption and the development of the congressional coalition and now the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute. All that she says about last evening is so true. It was a gala event, well beyond our expectations, when we started this whole effort a good number of years ago. Tonight, let me challenge every Senator who has not yet participated with us in the congressional coalition itself and in the institute to come on board and to be a part of what is truly a wonderful and worthwhile activity. Both Mary and I are adoptive parents, and we know what that has meant in our lives. Now to facilitate the smoothing out of public policy, to make adoption truly an option of the right form in taking children into loving and caring and safe environments to grow and to mature into sound adults is a role all of us ought to be a part of. If you cannot do it as actively as both Mary and I do, then you should be with us in spirit and legislation and participation but help us to grow this marvelous movement. Last night, with nearly 1,000 people and with the Alis and with Bruce Willis and a good many others, we were very pleased to honor these angels from across the country who Mary has so aptly described as caring, giving, and loving people. I thank the Senator for yielding and for her great work in this area.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, and our other colleagues in introducing the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act of 2003. I am one of those who voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act to respond to the unprecedented, tragic attacks of September 11, 2001. However, even at the time of that vote, I raised my reservations about the new authorities being granted under the act, and pledged that there would be aggressive oversight by the legislative branch to make sure PATRIOTS implementation did not compromise civil liberties. Since that time, this lengthy and complex law has been subjected to considerable dissection and discussion both inside and outside of Congress, and concerns have been raised about many of its provisions. The low boil of discontent around the Nation exploded in the other Chamber some weeks ago with a strong vote to prohibit the use of appropriated funds for requesting delayed notice of a search warrant under the act. To its credit, the Bush administration has lately worked to address criticism of the law and demonstrate there have been no abuses by Federal law enforcement. I greatly appreciate those efforts and believe it is vitally important to continue that dialog with the Congress and the American people. At the same time, in light of the serious concerns that have been raised, I think it is appropriate for us to add some triggers to the law that will force Congress to review and affirmatively renew these authorities. That is what the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would accomplish, by sunsetting additional provisions that are not currently set to expire. I do not think this will create a burden for law enforcement; on the contrary, if these authorities are indeed critical to the protection of our Nation, it should not be difficult to convince Congress to renew them. Furthermore, the knowledge that such a case must be made at a time certain in the future will serve as an additional immediate check against potential abuses. The security of our Nation is the first responsibility of the Federal Government. Our bill will ensure that responsibility is carried out thoughtfully and in our country's great tradition of balance and restraint in the enforcement of our laws. I urge all our colleagues to join us in supporting the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, and our other colleagues in introducing the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act of 2003. I am one of those who voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act to respond to the unprecedented, tragic attacks of September 11, 2001. However, even at the time of that vote, I raised my reservations about the new authorities being granted under the act, and pledged that there would be aggressive oversight by the legislative branch to make sure PATRIOTS implementation did not compromise civil liberties. Since that time, this lengthy and complex law has been subjected to considerable dissection and discussion both inside and outside of Congress, and concerns have been raised about many of its provisions. The low boil of discontent around the Nation exploded in the other Chamber some weeks ago with a strong vote to prohibit the use of appropriated funds for requesting delayed notice of a search warrant under the act. To its credit, the Bush administration has lately worked to address criticism of the law and demonstrate there have been no abuses by Federal law enforcement. I greatly appreciate those efforts and believe it is vitally important to continue that dialog with the Congress and the American people. At the same time, in light of the serious concerns that have been raised, I think it is appropriate for us to add some triggers to the law that will force Congress to review and affirmatively renew these authorities. That is what the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would accomplish, by sunsetting additional provisions that are not currently set to expire. I do not think this will create a burden for law enforcement; on the contrary, if these authorities are indeed critical to the protection of our Nation, it should not be difficult to convince Congress to renew them. Furthermore, the knowledge that such a case must be made at a time certain in the future will serve as an additional immediate check against potential abuses. The security of our Nation is the first responsibility of the Federal Government. Our bill will ensure that responsibility is carried out thoughtfully and in our country's great tradition of balance and restraint in the enforcement of our laws. I urge all our colleagues to join us in supporting the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce today the introduction of bipartisan farmworker reform legislation with a bipartisan group of Members in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Our leading sponsors include Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressman Howard Berman, and Congressman Chris Cannon. The name of the bill says it all--``AgJOBS.'' That stands for the ``Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2003.'' We are introducing this bill today because Members of Congress realize our Nation is facing a growing crisis--for farm workers, growers, and the wider public. We want and need a stable, predictable, legal work force in American agriculture. Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in line for available jobs with fair market wages. We want all workers to receive decent treatment and protection of fundamental legal rights. Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply. American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders and a government that works. Yet Americans are being threatened on all these counts, because agriculture, more than any other sector of the economy, has become dependent for its existence on the labor of immigrants who are here without legal documentation. The only program currently in place to respond to a lack of legal domestic workers, the H-2A Guest Workers Program, is profoundly broken. Outside of H-2A, farm employers have no effective, reliable assurance that their employees are legal. Our own government has estimated that half of the total 1.6 million agricultural work force are not legally authorized to work in this country, based, astoundingly, on self-disclosure in worker surveys. Responsible private estimates run to 85 percent. Several more times in recent months, we have read of the senseless and inhuman deaths of farmworkers being smuggled illegally into the United States. Those who survive to work in the fields are among the most vulnerable persons in this country, unable to assert the most basic legal rights and protections. This situation never was acceptable. It has become intolerable. Immigrants not legally authorized to work in this country know they must work in hiding. They have been known to pay ``coyotes''--labor smugglers--thousands of dollars to be smuggled into this country. They cannot even claim basic legal rights and protections. They are vulnerable to predation and exploitation. They sometimes have been stuffed inhumanly into dangerously enclosed truck trailers and car trunks, in order to be transported, hidden from the view of the law. We heard with horror of the young girl who died this summer when a labor smuggler abandoned her entire family in the desert in the Southwest. In contrast, legal workers have legal protections. They can assert wage, safety, and other legal protections. They can bargain openly and join unions. H-2A workers, in fact, are guaranteed housing and transportation. Time is running out for American agriculture, farmworkers, and consumers. What was a problem years ago is a crisis today and will be a catastrophe if we do not act immediately. A growing number of family farms simply are going out of business as growers try to, but cannot, secure a legal work force. All Americans face the danger of losing more and more of our safe, domestic food supply to imports. Many farmers have seen recently hired workers scattered unpredictably by a government letter or random raid. As enforcement of our immigration and employment documentation laws has been stepped up-- sporadically and haphazardly--workers are rarely deported, but the workplace is frequently and widely disrupted. Between computerized checking by the Social Security Administration and audits and raids by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, more and more employers have discovered they have undocumented employees. More and more workers here illegally are being discovered and evicted from their jobs. The larger the so-called ``underground economy,'' the harder it is to knowledgeably and effectively provide for our homeland security needs. The H-2A status quo is complicated and legalistic. The Department of Labor's compliance manual alone is more than 300 pages long. A General Accounting Office study found that DOL missed deadlines in processing H-2A applications 40 percent of the time. For workers and growers alike, the H-2A status quo is slow, bureaucratic, and inflexible. It does nothing to recognize the uncertainties farmers face, from changes in the weather to global market demands. The current H-2A process is so hard to use, it will place only about 40,000 legal guest workers this year--2 to 3 percent of the total agricultural work force. The answer is AgJOBS. This farmworker reform legislation builds upon some six years of discussion and ideas from among growers, farmworker advocates, Latino and immigration issue groups, Members of both parties in both Houses of Congress, and others. The coming together of all these diverse viewpoints and interests makes AgJOBS truly an historic piece of legislation. Our AgJOBS bill offers a thoughtful, two-step solution. On a one-time basis, experienced, trusted workers with a significant work history in American agriculture would be allowed to stay here legally and earn adjustment to legal status. For workers and growers using the H-2A legal guest worker program, that program would be overhauled and made more streamlined, practical, and secure. AgJOBS takes a win-win-win approach for our nation, workers, and farmers. AgJOBS may be no one's idea of perfect labor and immigration legislation in an ideal world. However, for the imperfect world we live in, it is a balanced, practical, and achievable approach to resolving urgent problems that require immediate attention. The broad bipartism support for this approach is reflected already in the cosponsorship of a number of our colleagues. Among others, I am happy we are joined by Senators Gordon Smith and Bob Graham as original cosponsors, both of whom have invested years of work in this issue. Supporters of this legislation include the United Farm Workers of America, the National Council of La Raza, and the AFL-CIO, all of whom participated in a press conference the principal sponsors held earlier today, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This bill has overwhelming support in the agriculture community, including the National Council of Agricultural Employers, the American Nursery and Landscape Association, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list from the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform that includes a large number of agricultural groups around the country who support this bill. I also ask unanimous consent to print a technical summary of the bill; a side-by-side comparison with current law; an open letter to Congress from our former Secretary of Agriculture, Ambassador Clayton Yeutter; and the next of the AgJOBS bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce today the introduction of bipartisan farmworker reform legislation with a bipartisan group of Members in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Our leading sponsors include Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressman Howard Berman, and Congressman Chris Cannon. The name of the bill says it all--``AgJOBS.'' That stands for the ``Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2003.'' We are introducing this bill today because Members of Congress realize our Nation is facing a growing crisis--for farm workers, growers, and the wider public. We want and need a stable, predictable, legal work force in American agriculture. Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in line for available jobs with fair market wages. We want all workers to receive decent treatment and protection of fundamental legal rights. Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply. American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders and a government that works. Yet Americans are being threatened on all these counts, because agriculture, more than any other sector of the economy, has become dependent for its existence on the labor of immigrants who are here without legal documentation. The only program currently in place to respond to a lack of legal domestic workers, the H-2A Guest Workers Program, is profoundly broken. Outside of H-2A, farm employers have no effective, reliable assurance that their employees are legal. Our own government has estimated that half of the total 1.6 million agricultural work force are not legally authorized to work in this country, based, astoundingly, on self-disclosure in worker surveys. Responsible private estimates run to 85 percent. Several more times in recent months, we have read of the senseless and inhuman deaths of farmworkers being smuggled illegally into the United States. Those who survive to work in the fields are among the most vulnerable persons in this country, unable to assert the most basic legal rights and protections. This situation never was acceptable. It has become intolerable. Immigrants not legally authorized to work in this country know they must work in hiding. They have been known to pay ``coyotes''--labor smugglers--thousands of dollars to be smuggled into this country. They cannot even claim basic legal rights and protections. They are vulnerable to predation and exploitation. They sometimes have been stuffed inhumanly into dangerously enclosed truck trailers and car trunks, in order to be transported, hidden from the view of the law. We heard with horror of the young girl who died this summer when a labor smuggler abandoned her entire family in the desert in the Southwest. In contrast, legal workers have legal protections. They can assert wage, safety, and other legal protections. They can bargain openly and join unions. H-2A workers, in fact, are guaranteed housing and transportation. Time is running out for American agriculture, farmworkers, and consumers. What was a problem years ago is a crisis today and will be a catastrophe if we do not act immediately. A growing number of family farms simply are going out of business as growers try to, but cannot, secure a legal work force. All Americans face the danger of losing more and more of our safe, domestic food supply to imports. Many farmers have seen recently hired workers scattered unpredictably by a government letter or random raid. As enforcement of our immigration and employment documentation laws has been stepped up-- sporadically and haphazardly--workers are rarely deported, but the workplace is frequently and widely disrupted. Between computerized checking by the Social Security Administration and audits and raids by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, more and more employers have discovered they have undocumented employees. More and more workers here illegally are being discovered and evicted from their jobs. The larger the so-called ``underground economy,'' the harder it is to knowledgeably and effectively provide for our homeland security needs. The H-2A status quo is complicated and legalistic. The Department of Labor's compliance manual alone is more than 300 pages long. A General Accounting Office study found that DOL missed deadlines in processing H-2A applications 40 percent of the time. For workers and growers alike, the H-2A status quo is slow, bureaucratic, and inflexible. It does nothing to recognize the uncertainties farmers face, from changes in the weather to global market demands. The current H-2A process is so hard to use, it will place only about 40,000 legal guest workers this year--2 to 3 percent of the total agricultural work force. The answer is AgJOBS. This farmworker reform legislation builds upon some six years of discussion and ideas from among growers, farmworker advocates, Latino and immigration issue groups, Members of both parties in both Houses of Congress, and others. The coming together of all these diverse viewpoints and interests makes AgJOBS truly an historic piece of legislation. Our AgJOBS bill offers a thoughtful, two-step solution. On a one-time basis, experienced, trusted workers with a significant work history in American agriculture would be allowed to stay here legally and earn adjustment to legal status. For workers and growers using the H-2A legal guest worker program, that program would be overhauled and made more streamlined, practical, and secure. AgJOBS takes a win-win-win approach for our nation, workers, and farmers. AgJOBS may be no one's idea of perfect labor and immigration legislation in an ideal world. However, for the imperfect world we live in, it is a balanced, practical, and achievable approach to resolving urgent problems that require immediate attention. The broad bipartism support for this approach is reflected already in the cosponsorship of a number of our colleagues. Among others, I am happy we are joined by Senators Gordon Smith and Bob Graham as original cosponsors, both of whom have invested years of work in this issue. Supporters of this legislation include the United Farm Workers of America, the National Council of La Raza, and the AFL-CIO, all of whom participated in a press conference the principal sponsors held earlier today, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This bill has overwhelming support in the agriculture community, including the National Council of Agricultural Employers, the American Nursery and Landscape Association, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list from the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform that includes a large number of agricultural groups around the country who support this bill. I also ask unanimous consent to print a technical summary of the bill; a side-by-side comparison with current law; an open letter to Congress from our former Secretary of Agriculture, Ambassador Clayton Yeutter; and the next of the AgJOBS bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the focus of National Public Lands Day, 2003, is to improve and conserve our Nation's forests, grasslands, plains, rivers, streams and wetlands. As last year, we can expect tens of thousands of volunteers to join our dedicated land managers in projects across the country to protect America's rich natural resources and improve our opportunities to enjoy them. Year and year National Public Lands Day volunteers are maintaining the legacy of the Civilian Conservation Corps, CCC, who exemplified land stewardship through the thirties and into the forties. National Public Lands Day continues to serve, as did the CCCs, to build a sense of ownership for our public lands. I believe this land stewardship and sense of ownership are most critical today as many changes are occurring which are affecting our public lands. I would like to spend just a few minutes to discuss these changes, how they are affecting our public lands and what we are, and can be, doing to address these impacts. Our first concern is fire and fuels. Many of you are well aware of the catastrophic wildfires that have been occurring across the country over the past several years. This is a direct result of changing forest conditions that have led to a large build-up of fuels. Through legislated authorities such as Stewardship Contracting, communities are working with resource professionals and private contractors to address this situation while providing jobs, products and local income. We need to continue this work together to thin our forests, reduce hazardous fuels and restore the landscape to a more balanced condition. We need to continue to work together to provide more defensible space around our communities. Through legislation such as the Healthy Forest Initiative we can facilitate such projects that will protect our communities, our watershed and other at-risk lands. By continuing to work together we can address these hazardous conditions with win-win solutions. The introduction and spread of unwanted invasive species is another concern. Noxious weeds, non-native fish species and introduced insects are just a few examples of invasive species that can wreak havoc on our public lands and across all ownerships. Throughout the country, local governments, private landowners and public land managers are working together to build strategies and share resources to combat invasive species across broad landscapes. Working together we can develop prevention plans to keep unwanted species out and control plans to reduce or eradicate unwanted species that have already arrived. Working together we can ensure that our public lands will remain healthy habitats for the plants and animals that enrich our lives. Another concern is that, across the country, farms, ranches and other large tracts of open land are disappearing. These open spaces are being converted into neighborhoods, shopping malls and commercial complexes. In many respects these developments bring progress and benefits. In other ways these changes are creating a ripple effect on our public lands. Uses that were once spread across open lands owned by many are now being concentrated on the open lands remaining--Public Lands. Working together we can address these issues by considering these effects prior to development. Working together we can anticipate the increased demands such development will have on public lands and prepare our land managers to meet those demands. Working together we can find ways to promote development and protect our public lands. Our last major concern is unmanaged outdoor recreation. Americans are hard working, but in our time off we like to play as hard as we work. More and more, many of us like to recreate on our Nation's public lands. As a result the numbers of recreationists and types of recreational activities are increasing at a staggering rate. This is creating a situation that leaves land managers struggling to keep up and the public frustrated with unmet expectations. To help with this situation, across the country, volunteers, user groups and resource professionals are working together to provide trail systems that provide high quality, safe experiences for hikers, stock users and OHV riders of all ages. Senior citizens and other volunteers are providing campground host services to ensure safe, enjoyable camping experiences. And volunteers are providing interpretive services and educational programs to enhance American's understanding of their natural environment. Through efforts such as these we can keep our Public Lands special places for all Americans to use and enjoy. Public Lands are a national resource and a national treasure. The spirit of volunteers demonstrated on National Public Lands Day and the examples I've given of communities working together with resource professionals shows what can be done when we pull together. Working together on National Public Lands Day, and every day, will ensure that these lands are here for our enjoyment for generations to come.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Wyoming, who just entered another phase of his life. He is a grampa, but he can also get very silly. I am a grandpa, and I know the silliness that comes along with it. It is a wonderful kind of silliness, and it is a dimension in life of which I hope all men have the opportunity to be a part. So my neighbor in the West and my neighbor here on Capitol Hill, to you and your bride, who is now a grandma, congratulations.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thought I would spend a few moments this morning talking about an impending crisis that is offshore of the east coast at this moment that may well be headed our way. Hurricane Isabel could well make its way into this region and do great devastation. That devastation could well be to the forests and the timberlands of North Carolina and Virginia. And it could well be in some areas of Maryland, where it could come ashore. The reason I stand before the Senate this morning to talk about it is that we in the West are experiencing another kind of catastrophic event in our forests. They are called wildfires. Yet somehow we in the Senate, in the shaping of public policy, do not look at hurricane crises in our forests and our public lands the way we look at wildfires. In August of 1910, a wildfire started in Idaho and Montana, and 3 days later 3 million acres of land were gone. Our forest health problems are not isolated to the problems of the rural West. In 1989, Hurricane Hugo slammed ashore near Charleston, SC, and cut a path northwest through North Carolina and into Virginia. On the Francis Marion National Forest, 70 percent of the trees were killed. We, the Government, immediately expedited the process of cleanup, salvage, and replanting, funneling millions of dollars into that effort. This is a similar expected path of Hurricane Isabel, and the Governor of Virginia has already declared a state of emergency. In January of 1998, over 17 million acres of forests were heavily damaged in an ice storm that stretched across New York State, New Hampshire, Vermont, and into Maine. We responded appropriately with $48 million to help in the cleanup. In the spring of 1999, when a blowdown, followed by a southern bark beetle epidemic, hit the Texas National Forests, we provided emergency exemptions that allowed managers to enter into wilderness areas-- believe it or not--to sanitize the stands to slow down the insect infestation. Just last year, in the supplemental Defense appropriations bill, we helped Senator Daschle and Senator Johnson deal with forest health emergencies in their State of South Dakota by suggesting that, by law, NEPA appeals not be able to be litigated. Each time, a commonsense approach was supported by this body when a crisis hit our public forests. Each time, we reached out to our neighbors and said: We will help clean up the forests to ensure the health of the forests and to ensure the vitality of those forests for wildlife and for human life. As the Healthy Forest legislation comes up for debate, the Senator from New Mexico--who is in the Chamber now to handle the energy and water appropriations bill--and I, the other Senator from Idaho, Mike Crapo, and the Senator from Mississippi have been working with our colleagues from California and Oregon to assure that we can begin a process on the public lands of the West to attempt to clean them up, to reassure healthy forests. Yet somehow--by some groups, and by some Senators--it is looked at as an entirely different process from what Hurricane Isabel could well do to the forests of the Carolinas and to the forests of Virginia. Out West and across other forests of our country, this year we have lost nearly 4 million acres to wildfire and yet we struggle to get the money, we struggle to get the right to allow the process to clean up, to rehabilitate and reestablish the environment of these forests. It is time we wake up. What is happening to the forests of the West today is natural. It is a result of bug kill, it is a result of drought, and it is a result of us taking fire out of the ecosystems a good number of years ago. Somehow now we are not being allowed to treat it the very way we have allowed hurricane damage and other natural damages to be treated. So I plead with the Congress, I plead with this Senate, to realize this, to work with us to build a healthy forest bill. I thought it was appropriate to come to the Senate floor to say this at a time when Isabel is about ready to hit land and begin to damage the forests of the East Coast. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I echo the words of my colleague from Idaho on the importance of this enhanced funding. Few areas in the Pacific Northwest suffer more directly or as clearly by the changing needs of migrating salmon. I have been to Orofino and surrounding communities several times and have noted the rise and fall in fortunes of the nearby towns in accordance with the levels of water in the reservoir. As the Nation continues to press on this and other Pacific Northwest communities to take steps to revive protected salmon species, the Nation should also assist towns disproportionately affected by that national call to action. I appreciate the committee chairman securing these resources to recognize that commitment. It is my understanding that it is the committee's intention that these resources are provided to the Corps to be spent in the community in a manner that helps restore the economic base of the surrounding towns. These activities would include environmental measures and the establishment of a functional large boat moorage. Is this correct?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 16, 2003, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the nominations of Mr. Harvey S. Rosen, of New Jersey, and Ms. Kristen J. Forbes, of Massachusetts, to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisors, Executive Office of the President; Ms. Julie L. Myers, of Kansas, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement; and Mr. Peter Lichtenbaum, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing titled ``Oversight of GAO: What Lies Ahead for Congress' Watchdog?''

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at approximately 11 a.m. for a hearing to consider the nomination of C. Suzanne Mencer to be Director, Office of Domestic Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 16, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on Financial Reconstruction in Iraq.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in the Russell Senate Office Building Room 325 on ``Ensuring the Continuity of the United States Government: The Presidency.'' Witness List: Prof. Akhil Amar, Soutmayd Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT; Dr. John C. Fortier, Executive Director, Continuity of Government Commission, Research Associate, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC; Mr. M. Miller Baker, Esq., McDermott, Will & Emery, Washington, DC; and Prof. Howard M. Wasserman, Assistant Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law, Miami, FL.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, september 16, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226 on ``Examining the Importance of the H-1 Visa to the American Economy.'' Stephen Yale-Loehr, Business Committee Chair, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Adjunct professor, Cornell University Law School; Elizabeth Dickson, Advisor, Immigration Services, Ingersoll-Rand Corporation; John Steadman, President-Elect, IEEE-USA; and Patrick Duffy, Human Resources Attorney, Intel Corporation.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a joint hearing on Ensuring the Continuity of the United States Government: The Presidency.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 16, 2003, for a joint hearing with the House of Representatives' Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to hear the legislative presentation of The American Legion. The hearing will take place in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 16, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct on oversight hearing on the implementation of the Clean Water Act. The hearing will take place in SD 406 (Hearing Room).

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the chairman of the committee has worked hard to resolve this issue in the current legislation. We have $3.378 billion as it relates to teacher quality programs and the enhancement thereof. This is a substantial increase. There is probably never enough, but because of the caps and the allocations necessary, there is more now than there ever has been. I hope our colleagues will stand with the committee and chairman in opposing the Durbin Amendment. With that, I raise a point of order under section 504 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 2004 that the amendment exceeds the discretionary spending limits in this specified section and is not in order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing on September 11, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. The hearing was originally scheduled to consider S. 432, S. 849, and S. 511. In addition to these bills, the Committee will now consider S. 1582, which would amend the Valles Caldera Preservation Trust Act. 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, SD-364, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150 prior to the hearing date. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics, Dick Bouts, or Meghan Beal (202-224-7556).

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Home School Non-discrimination Act'' (HONDA). This bill would clarify several existing Federal statutes which inadvertently exclude home schoolers. I am pleased the Senator Allen is joining me in sponsoring this measure. All to often, Federal laws relating to education have left out the millions of children across the Nation who are benefitting from home schooling. For example, home schoolers generally cannot qualify for the education savings accounts, unless they live in one of 13 states where a home school is treated as a private school. Also, home schooled students have found themselves to be ineligible for student aid in some circumstances. Nearly 2 million American children were home schooled during the 2000-2001 school year. These are good students who frequently outperform their public school peers. For example, in 2002 home schoolers as a whole averaged over 70 points higher on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Also, although home schoolers only make up about 2 percent of the U.S. school-age population, in 2003 they made up 12 percent of the 251 spelling finalists and 5 percent of 55 geography bee finalists. These students consistently score at the highest levels of achievement tests and get into some of the best colleges and universities in our Nation. They are hard working, intelligent, and active in their communities. However, these students may be denied services available to other students because of an oversight in Federal law. That is not right, and HONDA will rectify the situation. I hope my colleagues will join me and Senator Allen in this effort. I ask unanimous consent to print a section-by-section analysis of HONDA as well as the text of the bill in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Home School Non-discrimination Act'' (HONDA). This bill would clarify several existing Federal statutes which inadvertently exclude home schoolers. I am pleased the Senator Allen is joining me in sponsoring this measure. All to often, Federal laws relating to education have left out the millions of children across the Nation who are benefitting from home schooling. For example, home schoolers generally cannot qualify for the education savings accounts, unless they live in one of 13 states where a home school is treated as a private school. Also, home schooled students have found themselves to be ineligible for student aid in some circumstances. Nearly 2 million American children were home schooled during the 2000-2001 school year. These are good students who frequently outperform their public school peers. For example, in 2002 home schoolers as a whole averaged over 70 points higher on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Also, although home schoolers only make up about 2 percent of the U.S. school-age population, in 2003 they made up 12 percent of the 251 spelling finalists and 5 percent of 55 geography bee finalists. These students consistently score at the highest levels of achievement tests and get into some of the best colleges and universities in our Nation. They are hard working, intelligent, and active in their communities. However, these students may be denied services available to other students because of an oversight in Federal law. That is not right, and HONDA will rectify the situation. I hope my colleagues will join me and Senator Allen in this effort. I ask unanimous consent to print a section-by-section analysis of HONDA as well as the text of the bill in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield myself time under the time allotted for Senator Sessions.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I, too, rise this evening to express concern over the pending free-trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. My colleague from Iowa has just spoken to that. I will approach it from a slightly different manner but with the same concerns. These trade agreements should have been focused largely on trade issues because our trading partners in this case need a relationship with us, and we have worked hard over the years to develop one with them. We have heard that our agreement with Chile would expand the GDP of this country by $4.2 billion and allow 75 percent of U.S. farm goods to enter Chile tariff free within 4 years. Both the Senator from Iowa and I would have to agree that is the way it ought to be. Certainly, I applaud our trade ambassador for working in that direction. Unfortunately, during negotiations, our representatives went beyond the issues of free trade and threw our immigration laws on the table for negotiating purposes. As a result, the agreements with Chile and Singapore contain immigration provisions that I think raise very troubling issues. Let me be the first to acknowledge that these immigration provisions may arguably benefit some U.S. companies, including companies in my home State. I have already visited with many of those companies. However, there are also problems with these provisions, problems with how they came into being in the first place, problems with their substance, and problems with their potential impact. What intensifies our dilemma today is that we run the risk that similar provisions would be included in future trade agreements, as the Senator from Iowa has already said, and I say here. Why? Because our trade ambassador has said it. What we deal with tonight are templates or foundations from which we will deal with other countries in establishing free-trade agreements. Those negotiations are already underway with Australia and Morocco and South Africa, Central America, and 34 countries in the western hemisphere we are currently engaging with in free-trade agreements. I will tell you, if this is a template and if he plans to negotiate immigration law in the midst of a free-trade agreement, this is one Senator who will work very aggressively to block them until our trade ambassador understands that he is outside his prerogative. Many of my colleagues will remember that last year more than 60 Senators expressed concern about our U.S. trade remedy laws being negotiated away and changed by our U.S. Trade Representatives without congressional consent or input. As we all know, once these trade agreements are sent to Congress, they cannot be changed or amended. Again, more than 60 Senators expressed concern about items that are within congressional purview and should be guided by Congress, not unelected officials down at the Trade Representative's office. These same fears and concerns apply to immigration provisions within the free-trade agreement. It is Congress and not our trade negotiators that should be making changes in U.S. immigration law. Senators have been rightly concerned about how much consultation should be done with Congress before these provisions are finalized. It is my understanding that the USTR consulted with six private sector advisory committees when negotiating terms of the free-trade agreement, including the labor advisory committee which was critical to the temporary entry provisions. The USTR published a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on both agreements. However, under the Trade Promotion Authority Act, the administration is required to consult with Congress while conducting negotiations. In this case, consultation was brief and given on very short notice, certainly with regard to the Judiciary Committee of which I am a member. But what troubles me more--and would have been resolved had Congress been meaningfully consulted--is the substance of the proposed immigration provisions themselves and Congress' limited ability to amend the provisions even in the face of fraud or abuse that could occur within this trade agreement. The free-trade agreement addresses four specific categories of temporary nonimmigrant admission currently governed by U.S. immigration law. These are business visitors, or B-1; treaty traders and investors, the E-1s and E-2s; intracompany transferees, the L-1s; and professional workers, the H-1Bs. The potential for fraud in these visa programs is substantial. The free-trade agreement is specific that neither party may ``as a condition of temporary entry, require prior approval procedure petitions, labor certification tests, or other procedures of similar effect. . . .'' Yet labor certification requirements ensure that foreign workers do not displace or adversely affect the working conditions of Americans. Current H-1B law requires attestation of H-1B dependent employees in order to reduce potential fraud. This requirement is necessary to prevent repeat users of H-1B visas from using temporary foreign labor as a strategy to avoid paying higher salaries to American workers. This requirement is not mentioned in the implementing language. Also, while the administration has included a cap on the number of professionals entering under the H-1B category, there are no such limitations on the number of temporary workers entering under other visa categories, including the B-1 visa, the E-1 visa, and the L-1 visa. None of these categories are numerically limited under the agreement and, once enacted, Congress may not subsequently impose caps on these categories for national entry. This is particularly problematic within the context of the L-1 visa category. Neither of the FTA agreements requires workers to be citizens of either Chile or Singapore. They can be from any country as long as they are working for a company located in either Chile or Singapore. Many employers are exaggerating the specialized product knowledge of their professional workers so they qualify as L-1 visa applicants. As a result, the L-1 visa program is receiving an increased amount of scrutiny by the State Department, as we speak. The Department of Homeland Security is looking at it as we speak. Members of Congress and the General Accounting Office are doing the same. GAO is also investigating the L-1 visa program. And the Judiciary Committee recently held hearings on this issue. What Congress must realize is that because the proposed legislation is implementing a free-trade agreement between the United States and Chile and Singapore, Congress' power to amend the proposed legislation is minimal even when Americans are being adversely affected. Only those amendments that do not conflict with the free-trade agreement can be amended without violating the agreement. This is the interesting catch-22 of what we are about to do. In fact, when asked whether Congress would be able to enact laws making changes in the H-1B or the L-1 visa programs that affect Chilean and Singaporean nationalities, once Congress approved the implementing language, the USTR, in a written response to questions submitted during a Judiciary Committee hearing, stated: ``[the United States] may make modifications to the immigration law that was amended by the proposed legislation to the extent consistent with the obligations of the United States Under the Chile and Singapore Agreements. This means that the United States ability to protect against fraud or protect U.S. workers from displacement by Chilean and Singaporean workers is reduced. The USTR states that ``neither agreement precludes the United States from modifying its law and regulation related to temporary entry after the Agreement enters into force, as long as those modifications do not unduly impair or delay trade in goods or services or the conduct of investment activities under the Agreements.'' However, the USTR has also stated that ``the international mobility of business persons, whether in their personal capacity or as employees providing services, has become an increasingly important component of component of competitive market for suppliers and consumers alike.'' This means that any restriction on visas may be viewed as unduly impairing or delaying trade in goods or services or the conduct of investment activities under the Agreements because employee services are so valuable. As we have witnessed in this post-September 11th world, our immigration laws are a delicate work in progress as we try to find a solution to many of our immigration problems. As we continue to work on immigration provisions to further protect our nation we now have a new roadblock--a provision created and placed in these free trade agreements. Should Congress, in the future, try to amend or change any of our current immigration provisions we must now always keep an eye on the provisions contained in these trade agreements. Why? Because should Congress change any of our immigration laws to adapt in this new world--and change any immigration laws that are subsequently also contained in these agreements--those new laws may in fact violate these very trade agreements--cause a tremendous problem. The problem is embodied within the provision. As a result, Chile or Singapore, or any future country we negotiate with, could challenge us by challenging our immigration laws in an international court. In other words the Senate of the United States, within these provisions, could be found in violation of the agreement, and therefore has lost control of its own ability to change our laws. Having our immigration laws challenged in an international court is something I firmly believe Americans do not want questioned or subject to an international body. It is simply called national sovereignty. Many of my constituents have always been concerned that, as we increasingly internationalize our economy, somehow we would lose our own ability to legislate and govern ourselves and control domestic policy. Tonight, with passage of these free-trade agreements, we have made a step, I believe, in that direction. Effectively, the immigration provisions contained in these FTAs are tying the hands of Congress as it relates to ensuring American workers are not displaced or working conditions are adversely affected. Should something happen in the United States where Congress deems it absolutely necessary to change our immigration laws in the interest of National Security--I say good luck without incidentally dragging these trade agreements down and throwing the entire agreement into question or into an international tribunal, where we could easily be out-voted. Many should be seriously asking the question why our Trade Representative is now our point person on immigration laws. The safeguards our Trade Representative left in these agreements in regards to the immigration provisions is minimal. Do these trade agreements allow the United States to block certain individuals of interest who are tying to come to this country under these new provisions? Yes it does. However, we did not negotiate a safeguard to suspend these new provisions without throwing the United States into violation of a Free Trade Agreement. The bottom line is Congress has its hands tied. Should we try to correct an immigration law in the future, we may also be creating an additional problem while trying to correct another. If these laws were vital to the free-trade agreement, I am certain the USTR, or those parties who have an interest in them, could and should have brought them to Congress as a freestanding amendment to our immigration laws and proposed them to us as a critical part of passing a free-trade agreement. That was not done. They were incorporated in the free-trade agreement because our trade ambassador knew they could not be amended once they were embodied. We would have to take them in part and in parcel. However, under this agreement, now our hands are tied. I don't believe the American people want our hands tied when it comes to immigration law. They want us to be flexible, they want us to regain control of our borders, they want us to protect our workforce, while at the same time expanding where necessary, and an international workforce is needed. Clearly, in this country and in the future, that will be necessary. I hope we move in that direction. I will oppose these tonight because of that. With that, I yield the floor.