Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Arizona for mentioning that situation. I did visit with a gentleman who was slated to go to Justice, and will in time. But you know there is an image problem here. Oftentimes, or at least sometimes, the public thinks these people who serve a President and are nominated are wealthy people or people of substantial means who can do as they wish. That is not true. They come from all walks of life and all experiences. They fit the situation and/ or the responsibility they are going to undertake. A lot of them are young, family people with children in school. The question is, Are we going to be confirmed and can we bring our kids to Washington and get them into the schools here in the area because remember what happens at the end of August? Kids go back to school. I understand the other day in this city there was a breakfast of about 20 of them, trying to make up their minds whether to tough it out, wondering when the Senate might operate, or if they were going to have to pick up the phone and call the President and say: Mr. President, I am sorry; I really did want to serve you and I wanted to serve the American people, but I have to get on with my life. I have been 3 or 4 months in limbo now, and because of the risk of conflicts of interest, I cannot continue in my current job or my current capacity and I have kids to get in school this fall. I have a home I have to sell and/or a home to buy. What do I do? That is the practical, human side of this very real problem that the Senate of the United States has created. I thank the Senator from Arizona for mentioning that.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern over the control of water levels of the Kootenai River in and around Bonners Ferry, ID, related to the Kootenai Sturgeon. The Kootenai River is directly influenced by the operations of the Libby Dam as operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. This area has also been defined as critical habitat for the Kootenai Sturgeon. Will the distinguished Senators from Nevada and New Mexico engage in a colloquy with me concerning the Kootenai River Sturgeon?

Mr. CRAIG. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in the final stages of the biological opinion reporting on the Kootenai Sturgeon. I feel this document is severely flawed. In the assessment, the economic impact is determined to have ``no effect'' because the area of study is 11 miles of river bottom. As there is no economic activity on the river bottom, I understand the conclusion of the biological opinion. However, I believe the area studied by the economic impact should be the communities affected by any changes in the operations of the Kootenai River. The biological opinion states that the river should be operated above 1,758 feet to support increased flows for Kootenai Sturgeon. Various studies exist that dispute this number as being correct. When the river is operated above an elevation of 1,758 feet, the water table in the surrounding area rises. As a result, farmers in the area lose crops. I argue this action is a significant economic impact. I feel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should examine a realistic area as part of their economic impact analysis--that is the area in which an economic impact occurs. Before decisions are made that drastically affect communities, all of the factors should be considered.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am not raising an objection to the Senate's approval of S. Res. 122 regarding the transfer of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to the United Nations war crimes tribunal. It is clear that the primary purpose of the resolution is to applaud the fact that someone credibly alleged to have been a primary instigator of heinous crimes be brought to justice. I applaud that sentiment. A number of similarly culpable persons from all the groups concerned should have to answer for what has occurred during the past ten years of war and strife in former Yugoslavia, and by all accounts Milosevic tops the list. His prosecution and, if he is found guilty after a fair and open judicial process, his severe punishment are very much in order. However, despite my decision not to object to this resolution, I think it is important to point out that it contains several elements that do not serve United States interests. And some of what is stated in it is not even accurate. Indeed, when an effort was made to pass this resolution just prior to the July 4 recess, I asked that it be held up until some of these could be addressed. It was then sent to committee and some of the problematic portions were in fact made worse. I wish to address some of these briefly. First, just as a factual matter--and this is new language added in committee--it is inaccurate to state, as the Resolution does in the second ``Whereas'' clause, that ``the reformist Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia freely exercised its sovereign right to cede jurisdiction to prosecute'' Milosevic. Actually, as far as anyone knows, the federal Yugoslav government headed by President Vojislav Kostunica, an old-fashioned patriot, who, incidentally, was the translator of the U.S. Federalist Papers into Serbian, had nothing to do with the Milosevic handover and in fact strongly opposed it, but was circumvented by the Serbian republic government of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. Second, one can hardly say that this was a ``free exercise of sovereignty.'' It is well known that the United States--mistakenly, in my view, continuing the policies of the Clinton administration--had threatened to boycott an international aid donors' conference unless Milosevic were surrendered. It should be understood that this is not just a matter of the U.S. withholding foreign aid. Rather, it amounts to continuing a policy of sanctions against an economically devastated country, and threatening to destabilize its weak democratic government, until it disregarded its own laws and complied with our demands. I could call this many things, but ``free exercise of sovereignty'' is not one of them. Moreover, Prime Minister Djindjic's compliance with this pressure is hardly an example of ``courage,'' as the resolution calls it, especially since it is well known the extent to which he has used the Milosevic handover to undermine his political rival, President Kostunica. Third, the same clause says the handover fosters ``the rule of law in Yugoslavia.'' Again the opposite is true. When we have here, to give an American analogy, would be as if an American State Governor violated provisions of the U.S. constitution and policies set by the President in order to comply with the wishes of foreign countries. Instead of the rule of law, what has been fostered in Yugoslavia--and in its two remaining republics, Serbia and Montenegro--is the idea that laws, constitutional government, and national sovereignty are meaningless, and that the only real authorities are the demands of foreign powers and the ``jurisdiction'' of global United Nations ``justice,'' represented by the tribunal to which Milosevic has been delivered. For a country trying to emerge from decades of dictatorship, this is exactly the wrong message to send. Fourth and finally, the same clause applauds the notion that the Milosevic handover has fostered ``international justice.'' That unfortunately is true, but I don't think it is reason for applause. As many of my colleagues know, I am strongly and unalterably opposed to the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court, of which the Yugoslavia tribunal and its Rwanda counterpart are precursors. In sending Milosevic to the U.N. tribunal--on charges arising in his own country, specifically Kosovo, which is a province of Serbia--we are helping to set a dangerous precedent for the ICC. We are saying to the world that when the will of a United Nations ``court'' clashes with a country's laws and constitution, the latter go into the trash can. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I would object to sending any American citizen, no matter how evil the acts of which he was accused and however guilty he might be, to a United Nations court, especially if his alleged crimes took place in the United States. But we have successfully demanded that Serbia and Yugoslavia do exactly that, and similar demands are being made against the Bosnian Serb republic and against Croatia. Serious crimes deserve serious punishment, but the question is not one of whether justice will be done but before what court and under whose authority. At a time when U.S. troops are facing danger every day in Bosnia and Kosovo--and may soon be sent, unwisely in my view, to Macedonia--the policy consequences of setting in motion political events that may destabilize non-democratic Yugoslavia and even help break up the federation are counterproductive to U.S. interests and a threat to the safety of our troops. For the reasons stated above, it has been a blow, not a benefit, to democracy and constitutionalism. But worst of all, it has lent credence to the principles supporting the ICC, which is a direct threat to the sovereignty of our own constitutional republic and our democratic institutions. I welcome the day that Milosevic and comparable persons face justice for their deeds. But he should have been allowed to face justice at home, in front of a court of his own people, under his own laws and constitution, as President Kostunica wanted. The fact that we have ensured that this will not occur is not something for us to be proud of.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, when I was preparing for this morning's tribute, I could not help but reflect on the year that has passed since the untimely departure of our friend and colleague, Paul Coverdell. What a year this has been--and what he would have made of it all. We used to joke that the Senate schedule had become ``All Coverdell, all the time,'' because his fingerprints were everywhere: education, tax reform, fighting for peace, standing for freedom. It was my privilege to work with him on the Republican leadership team, and to see firsthand that phenomenal energy that kept him working behind the scenes long after the Senate had shut down for the night or before it convened. Descriptions of him nearly always include the word ``workhorse''--and that is a name he certainly earned over and over. He was an idea generator with a boundless enthusiasm for public service and a willingness to undertake any chore, no matter how thankless, to move the agenda forward. He would have relished the many challenges that our party has faced over the past year, because he was a loyal partisan. Years ago, when he was one of only four Republicans in the Georgia State Senate, he took on the task of rebuilding the State's Republican Party. Later, his first run for the U.S. Senate was an uphill battle against an incumbent. This was a man who looked for big challenges and never faltered in advancing his party's standard. Yet despite his partisanship, he was known for his civility and his ability to get along with members of both parties--and I might add, his ability to get along with the variety of temperaments that abound in this institution. Paul Coverdell had a warmth that many people felt on even a short acquaintance. Those who regarded him a friend are legion. The shock we felt at this time a year ago may have passed, but the bereavement remains. Georgia lost an ardent and effective spokesman, the Nation lost a patriot, and the Senate lost a true friend. Many have talked about the legacy of Paul Coverdell--the work he did for the party, the stamp he put on the Peace Corps, the legislation he wrote and speeches he gave in the Senate. But I think his lasting legacy is written on the hearts of those who knew him.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to James Lake upon the occasion of his completion in June of a tenure as the President of the American Nuclear Society for the 2000/2001 year. The American Nuclear Society is an international scientific and educational organization established in 1954. Its membership now has approximately 11,000 engineers, scientists, administrators, and educators representing over 1,600 corporations, educational institutions, and government agencies. The work of nuclear engineers and scientists is especially relevant to meeting the increasing need of the Nation for electricity. Around the United States, there is a growing public interest in new nuclear plants which offer an economical, safe and environmentally-friendly alternative for the generation of electricity. The development of nuclear professionals is a valuable service for the Nation that advances our energy security and economic well-being. Jim Lake's service as the President of the American Nuclear Society this year has helped to stimulate the interest in new nuclear generation which has stemmed from energy shortages in California and higher energy prices in many areas. He has crossed the Nation many times this year to meet with nuclear professionals, industry executives, public servants, educators and students to seek their views and ideas on an expanding role for nuclear energy in the Nation's future. He has represented the professionals of the United States in many forums overseas, and has brought home a broad perspective on nuclear energy's role in a balanced energy portfolio. Jim Lake's career now spans twenty-eight years, of which he has spent the last seventeen at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in my State. As he completes his tenure as President, he returns to the Laboratory as an Associate Laboratory Director with an enthusiasm for nuclear energy that is fueled by his many experiences of the last year. Always interested in the development of the professionals at the Laboratory, Jim has been an active and tireless supporter of the Idaho Section of the American Nuclear Society. His leadership of that section resulted in its award for Outstanding Section Management in 1992. The Idaho Section has won many awards in the last ten years and is considered to be truly one of the best in the society. Jim Lake attended the Georgia Institute of Technology, receiving a Master's degree in 1969 and a Doctoral degree in 1972. He was elected a Distinguished Engineering Alumnus by Georgia Tech in 1996, and a Fellow of the American Nuclear Society in 1992. He is the author of over thirty technical publications in the disciplines of reactor physics, nuclear engineering and nuclear reactor design. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deep appreciation to Jim Lake for his outstanding service, for his leadership of the American Nuclear Society and in wishing him well in all future endeavors.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. While I wish gray wolves did not reside in my State, they do, and they are not going away. Thus, I believe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be pro-active and aggressive in addressing issues related to the monitoring of the wolf population and working with the affected States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to delist the population. The wolf population in Central Idaho is growing by leaps and bounds. As a result, permittees are faced with growing livestock- wolf conflicts. In addition, private property rights are infringed as these conflicts occur on private property. Yet the permittee must have a Federal permit to address conflict issues on their own land. Last, as the population grows, management efforts have not increased at the same rate. I feel that these individuals should not be punished because the wolves were re-introduced into central Idaho. The subcommittee has worked to secure an additional $200,000 for the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Program. I fee this additional money should be used to increase monitoring efforts and increase communication with potentially affected permittees, as well as, to focus efforts on defining and meeting criteria for delisting the wolves in central Idaho. I believe these funds should work to provide Idaho with flexibility in managing the wolf population to meet the needs of those most affected by the wolves.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I rise to commend Mr. Byrd and Mr. Burns on their leadership and hard work on this bill. The subcommittee has had to make hard decisions about scarce resources and has labored to do so fairly. They have made real efforts to make sure the taxpayer's dollar is spent effectively and efficiently. I have seen first-hand, and appreciate, their dedication to the integrity of this process. Would the distinguished gentlemen form West Virginia and Montana engage in a colloquy with me concerning the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Program for the nonexperimental population of gray wolves?

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask for no more than 2 minutes following the comments of the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Chairman Ron Wyden, tonight to visit about Steven Griles and the reality that Steven is about to become a major operative in the Department of the Interior. I stand tonight in full support of the decision of George W. Bush to nominate him to become Deputy Secretary. I do that because I know Steven Griles and I know he will do it when he looks me in the eye and he looks Senator Wyden in the eye and says he will work in the character of the new Secretary, Gale Norton, as it relates to the four C's that she has so clearly laid out over the time of her confirmation hearings and as, I think, she has clearly demonstrated in the period of time in which she has served our country as our new Secretary of the Interior. That is one of consultation, cooperation, and communication that results in conservation of our natural resources to benefit all of the interests of our country. I believe Steven Griles will do that following the direction of the Secretary of the Interior. While Ron Wyden and I will disagree a bit, we also understand the critical nature of cooperation, as he has so clearly spelled out, in the collaborative process. The models under which we must make decisions on our public land resources have changed from the days in which Steven Griles served the Reagan administration and in which Steven Griles will now have the privilege of serving the Bush administration. We have tried to pioneer with the concept of a collaborative process. Clearly, the effort Senator Wyden and I launched last year that is now law incorporates within it the idea of bringing all of the principals together to sit down to resolve conflict over resource issues at the local level and ultimately we believe we can aspire to that at the national level. Therefore, I stand in favor of Steven Griles becoming our new Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior and I think he will at the end serve us well and I think the record will demonstrate that. Let me say in closing, and I say it in all fairness to our majority leader, Tom Daschle, I thank him and I thank Harry Reid for the cooperation they have offered to all of us tonight in moving expeditiously some of the nominees that were at the desk or other nominees who were just moved out of committee today, both the Armed Services Committee and the Interior Committee. It is absolutely critical that the President of the United States be allowed to nominate and have people of his choice to serve him in the administration of our Government at the executive level. Tonight we move a great number of people, probably the largest number we have moved to date at one time. That has been because of a cooperative effort on the part of the majority leader, Tom Daschle, and all of us working together to make that happen. I hope to achieve our goal that the some 173 who are now before the authorizing committees across the Senate can be brought to hearings, heard, voted out of committee, brought to the floor and I hope many of them could be moved before the August recess. A lot of these fine people who have been asked to serve our Government are men and women who have families and who need to make decisions over whether to leave their families and their children in the schools where they now are or whether they are going to be allowed to get them in Washington in time to enroll them in school as it would start in late August or early September. Surely this Senate can operate in a reasonable and responsible fashion to do the appropriate hearings, to find out if these men and women are clearly qualified, as the President believes they are, to serve our country at the executive level, bring them from the committee, bring them to the floor, and allow to happen what is happening this evening. When disagreements arise, as they do--as with Senator Wyden and Mr. Griles--they are either voted on or are spread upon the Record as a template from which to judge the people who will serve in the executive branch, and to hold before them as a constant reminder of what they pledged to us in their confirmation hearings before the committee. That is fair and responsible, and it is the job of the Senate to respond in that fashion. I am extremely pleased that we are able to move expeditiously on a good number tonight to give our President the tools by which to operate the executive branch of Government and to allow him, as the citizens of this country have chosen, to govern our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for a couple of minutes. Let me also ask unanimous consent that Senator Frank Murkowski, who is coming to the floor, be allowed to speak for a period of time prior to the action. I believe Senator Nelson is here to do the same.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, there is a great deal of what my colleague from Illinois has said that I just won't disagree with at all. This is an important thing to be corrected, though, in his statement because we must deal with facts here when we are talking to the American people about the choices they will have to make depending on the policies we create. First, the Bush administration is not advocating drilling in all of the monuments of the lower 48 States. That is a falsehood. What is important to say is that the Bush administration is proposing an energy policy that would open up public lands to be explored for the purpose of finding additional energy resources to determine whether or not they ought to be developed. That is a very real and different statement than the one my colleague from Illinois just made. What is important about this debate is a choice that we are asking the American people to make. I think it is an important choice. I think it is worthy of the debate that we are having. Energy security, the right of the family to know that their energy is secure, that their lights won't go out, or the cost of driving their minivan or their SUV is going to double or triple over the next couple of years, or the right and the power of big oil and OPEC to dictate that because policymakers were asleep at the switch or used false arguments to cause fear amongst the American people--if that is true, then shame on those policymakers. But bravo to the policymaker that is willing to stand up for the security of our country and the security of the American family. That is what is important. Should the mom have to pay three or four times what she is paying now to drive her son or her daughter to a soccer game? Well, her costs have doubled in the last year. The reason they have doubled is because this country has not had a national energy policy. We had to go begging to the thieves in the Middle East, the OPEC crowd. That was the policy of the past administration--grab my tin cup and beg and let mom pay at the gas pump. Was it the right policy? I don't think it was. I am not even going to suggest that drilling or allowing exploration in monuments is the right policy. But what I will suggest to you today and to my colleague from Illinois is, do we have to make very hard-line choices in a world of modern technology and the talent that we possess today? Can we not shape an environment and shape a national economy that are compatible? I agree with my colleague from Illinois. If you want to step back 30 years and use the argument of 30 years ago, he wins. If he is opposed to drilling or if he is opposed to exploration, that is correct. And I lose, if I am for it being based on 30-year-old technology. If you want the technology of today and tomorrow, then my guess is that it is a bit of a tossup. We have preserved and protected the environment. But most importantly, we haven't forced mom to go to the gas pump and double her prices. I recently talked to a young man who is vice president of a new technology company out in California. We know what has gone on out in California, and we can pick losers and winners and those to blame. I will tell you what was wrong with that young man. He had not made any bad choices. He was frightened. He drives a minivan; He has an economy car; and he has a house. But he said: Senator Craig, I am frightened I am going to lose my job. I have spent 20 years building a retirement, and the company I work for is teetering today because their energy costs have tripled, their profitability is disappearing, and they are laying off people. That is as a result of this Senate, and others, not making the right policy choices over the last decade. That is why that young man in California is frightened today about his future. What does that have to do with national monuments or the 23 new monuments that former President Clinton created in the lower 48? I believe it has something to do with it. I believe it has to do with the fundamental question that is being asked of my colleague from Illinois today, and that I ask of all of us: Can we live together compatibly in an environment in which we can apply new technologies to have abundant energy or do we have to pick winners and losers? I totally disagree with him on his using Teddy Roosevelt as a facade to argue. Yes, you are right, Teddy Roosevelt, in 1908, created the great forest preserves of our country. I know. I am a bit of a student of Teddy Roosevelt. I do not use him when it is comfortable. I study him, and I believe in him. And he went on to create some of the grand national parks. But my guess is, he would not have run around the country in his last 5 years creating all kinds of monuments for the sake of developing environmental votes. He did it because he saw the need to create and protect the true jewels of our country's environment. What Teddy Roosevelt also knew was that you had to have something that was in balance. I will tell you, the Senator from Illinois is absolutely right: If we take all of these monuments off the table and we do not drill in them, we will not feel it tomorrow, and we will not feel it the next day, and our dependency on foreign oil will grow from 50 percent to 60 percent to 70 percent. If we can play games with the OPEC boys and we can keep them at about $28 a barrel, then we are OK--probably. Now your gas prices have doubled. For a family making $15 to $25,000 a year, that means 30 percent of their income gets spent on energy. But for somebody such as the Senator from Illinois or myself--we are making pretty good money--it probably will not affect our lives very much because it is a smaller percentage of our total spendable income. Shame on a country today that understands technology and understands the environment and isn't willing to try to make both of them work together. The Senator from Illinois and I want clean air, we want clean water, and we are going to insist on it because we think that is the right public policy. And we want to preserve the crown jewels of our Nation because that is the right public policy. But when a President comes to my State and carves out 250,000 acres, it is not the Washington Monument; it is 250,000 acres of sagebrush land with a few rocks on it and a few unique geologic features. Interestingly enough, there is no hydrocarbon because it is a volcanic formation, and they were all burnt out about 2\1/2\ million years ago. So the argument does not apply to Idaho. But my guess is, the Senator from Illinois has picked something that is very popular, if you argue it only on one side. But I challenge my colleague from Illinois to tell the American household and the American mom that they will forever be secure in that the lights will never go out or the gas bills will never go up much more than they have gone up now, and we will work collectively together to build a national energy policy that includes conservation and modernization and technology, and that we become self-reliant, and that we build a national security that says we can produce our own energy and we do not have to ask the world at large to provide it for us. That is a part of this debate. It really is a part of what we ought to be considering today when we decide whether we are going to deny the right to explore on public lands in this country. I think that is a worthy debate. I thank my colleague from Illinois for bringing the issue to this Chamber because it is important for all of us to understand: 20 years ago, you bet, lock it up to protect it; today, modernization and technology says--and I think America believes--that we have come a long way and we can do a better job of balancing the environment and the economy and the use of it all together in an effective manner. And today's debate is just a little bit about a lot of that. I am concerned about the families of America and their energy security. I do not want them paying more and more of their hard-earned money on energy. But I am not sure that the kind of policy that is being advocated today in this amendment will guarantee that. And I am not at all confident that the Senator from Illinois can assure it. But that is the crux of the debate.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to have joined several colleagues this week in introducing a new, improved version of the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act, the ``AgJOBS'' bill. We are facing a growing crisis, for both farm workers and growers. 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 equal protection under the law. 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 of a growing labor shortage in agriculture, while the only program currently in place to respond, the H-2A Guest Worker Program, is profoundly broken. The problem is only growing worse. Therefore, we are introducing a new, improved bill. The name of the bill says it all--``AgJOBS''. Our farm workers need this reform bill. There is no debate about whether many, or most, farm workers are aliens. They are. And they will be, for the foreseeable future. The question is whether they will be here legally or illegally. Immigrants not legally authorized to work in this country know they must work in hiding. 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. In fact, they have been known to pay ``coyotes'', labor smugglers, $1,000 and more to be smuggled into this country. 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 even guaranteed housing and transportation. Clearly, the status quo is broken. Domestic American workers simply are not being found to fill agricultural jobs. Our own government estimated that half of the total 1.6 million agricultural work force are not legally authorized to work in this country. That estimate is probably low; it's based on self-disclosure by illegal workers to government interviewers. Some actually have suggested that there is no labor shortage, because there are plenty of illegal workers. This is not an acceptable answer. Congress has shown its commitment over the past few years to improve the security of our borders, both in the 1996 immigration law and in subsequent appropriations. Between computerized checking by the Social Security Administration and audits and raids by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, more and more employers are discovering they have undocumented employees; and more and more workers here illegally are being discovered and evicted from their jobs. Outside of H-2A, employers have no reliable assurance that their employees are legal. It's worse than a Catch-22, the law actually punishes the employer who could be called ``too diligent'' in inquiring into the identification documents of prospective workers. 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 H-2A status quo is complicated and legalistic. DOL's compliance manual alone is 325 pages. 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. Finally, the grower can't even count on his or her government to do its job. A General Accounting Office study found that, in more than 40 percent of the cases in which employers filed H-2A applications at least 60 days before the date of need, the DOL missed statutory deadlines in processing them. The solution we need is the AgJOBS Act of 2001. This is win-win legislation. It will elevate and protect the rights, working conditions, and safety of workers. It will help workers, first domestic American workers, then other workers already here, then foreign guest workers, find the jobs they want and need. It will assure growers of a stable, legal supply of workers, within a program that recognizes market realities. The adjusted-worker provisions also will give growers one-time assistance in adjusting to the new labor market realities of the 21st Century. It will assure all Americans of a safe, consistent, affordable food supply. The nation needs AgJOBS. I invite the rest of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors; and I urge the Senate and the House to act promptly to enact this legislation into law. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be included in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate my colleagues' comments and their willingness to address this issue again. I withdraw my amendment and thank them for their consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill regarding the purchase of U.S. grain by Israel. This issue is of concern because Israel has stated its intention to cut its U.S. grain purchases by more than 22 percent in the current year. Historically, in every year since the Camp David Accords of 1978, Israel has agreed to purchase 1.6 million metric tons of grain grown by American farmers and to ship at least half that amount in United States-flag commercial vessels. These are purchases important to American agriculture and to the U.S. citizen merchant mariners critical to our national security. Every year, these purchases have been consistent, until now. Starting in 1979, and in every year since then, Israel has entered into a side letter agreement with the United States for the purchase of grain, recognizing that the cash transfer economic assistance Israel has received replaced, in part, a previous commodity import assistance program for Israel. Despite a level of U.S. aid in every year since 1984 that has been higher than the 1979-1983 level, Israel never increased grain imports. Had proportionality been the test, Israel's purchases should have reached 2.45 million tons at least at one point. The commitment to purchase never grew as Israel's economic support fund assistance grew. America, in generous friendship, didn't push for those purchases to grow. And, as economic assistance to Israel has recently decreased, Israel's commitment to purchase didn't change until now. The Government of Israel has announced its intention to reduce grain purchases by more than 22 percent this year, from 1.6 million tons to 1.24 million tons. This is not proportional, but disproportional. U.S. economic assistance to Israel has declined only 12.5 percent this year. If Israel's purchases of U.S. grain were not tied to increasing levels of U.S. economic aid, then those purchases should not be tied to a recent downward fluctuation in economic aid. Such an overreaction ignores history, is disappointing in view of our long-term friendship and overall relationship, and ignores the express intent of this Congress in providing aid in the past. Several times in recent years, Congress has enacted laws providing that, in administering assistance, the President would guard against an adverse impact on such exports from the United States to Israel. The amendment I offered this week simply would have reiterated for fiscal year 2001 the past Congressional commitment that this year's side letter agreement should be in accordance with terms as favorable as last year's agreement. I was prepared to pursue that amendment further. I remain concerned and disappointed over this year's side letter. However, with most of fiscal year 2001 past, with the need for this supplemental bill to move quickly for the benefit of our national defense and our men and women in uniform, and based upon discussions with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I would be willing to withhold at this time. I would like to yield to those two colleagues for a discussion on this matter.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 869

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for working with us on the amendment he has just discussed. It is a question of notification. We have not blocked--nor would we want to block as a Senate--the ability of this Defense Department to plan. What we do want them to do is plan with us in the process. We think the notification point does that, and the amendment directs this in that order.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator who is just leaving the floor needs to know that $34 or $33 million represents about 30 cents a letter. I think both he and I wish we could send out any kind of campaign solicitation for 33 cents or 30 cents a letter. It seems to be a pretty efficient operation to me. But here is what the IRS is saying today. Even though the Senator from New York is talking politics, the IRS is talking fraud. The IRS is talking scam. The IRS is trying to warn the American taxpayer, who may or may not receive a rebate check, that they better beware that there is somebody out there who wants to take $14 or $15 or $20 of their money. Let me refer to a scam operation known as Revenue Resource Center in Boca Raton, FL. Send in your check for $12.95 and an extra $2, and we will calculate for you what your rebate is going to be. The IRS is already going to calculate for you what your rebate is going to be. The Senator from New York knows that. What the Senator ought to be saying is: Bravo, IRS, you may be stopping a multi- multimillion-dollar scam operation. The IRS has identified scams in four other States: in Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma, and they are anticipating there will be a good many others before this is over with. What does the IRS do in its letter? Not only does it say the Congress and the President provided this, on an effort on their part, but it says here is how the calculation was made. If you have a question, make a phone call. Here is the phone number. That sounds pretty responsible to me. I suggest that is the kind of government we ought to have. Is it political? I don't think it is. The Senator from Iowa mentioned that President Clinton was mentioned in an IRS letter. I have a copy of that IRS letter. Bravo. Bravo. Whether we take credit for it--in fact, it was the Senator from New York who, in 1995 said: When you do something you ought to tell your constituent about it. So he quoted himself in the New York Daily News. Is there anything wrong with what is going on? There is nothing wrong with what is going on, in fact. I think what the Senator from New York and I know is you take this form right here; it is called 2001 Form 16- D. It looks like an official IRS form. Let me tell you it is a scam form provided by this group from Boca Raton, FL. Right here it says: Processing fee $12.95. Rush service add $2. Total payment [$14.95]. If you got $14.95 from a few hundred thousand or a few million taxpayers, my guess is you walk away with a bundle because you have a mailing address and you have a computer and you have a printer. What the IRS is saying when they notify the taxpayer is: You are going to get your check and here is how it is going to be calculated. They are even saying to some taxpayers: You are not going to get a check, and here is why you are not going to get a check. My guess is this may have a lot less to do with politics, at least from the standpoint of the IRS, and a great deal more to do with efficiency of government. But most important, should not we go the extra step so we avoid the scams that the great genius of the human mind creates when they see an opportunity to take advantage of an older person, or an innocent person who might be concerned that somehow they are not going to get their appropriate check? So they are going to fill out this form and send it in to a group in Boca Raton, FL? That is what the issue is all about. So we are going to use $34 million at a cost of about 30 cents a letter to about 130 million Americans to notify them that all the information they need is right there available to them, even how their check was calculated, and all of that is going to be made available by the IRS. And, oh, by the way, yes, you are right, Senator from New York. The front paragraph says: And this tax relief was provided for you by the Congress--I believe that is Democrat and Republican--and by the President of the United States, George W. Bush. Let's stop the scam artists. Let's notify the American people when they are going to get it, how they are going to get it, and how it is calculated. It seems like the right thing to do--not the political thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to have joined several colleagues this week in introducing a new, improved version of the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act, the ``AgJOBS'' bill. We are facing a growing crisis, for both farm workers and growers. 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 equal protection under the law. 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 of a growing labor shortage in agriculture, while the only program currently in place to respond, the H-2A Guest Worker Program, is profoundly broken. The problem is only growing worse. Therefore, we are introducing a new, improved bill. The name of the bill says it all--``AgJOBS''. Our farm workers need this reform bill. There is no debate about whether many, or most, farm workers are aliens. They are. And they will be, for the foreseeable future. The question is whether they will be here legally or illegally. Immigrants not legally authorized to work in this country know they must work in hiding. 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. In fact, they have been known to pay ``coyotes'', labor smugglers, $1,000 and more to be smuggled into this country. 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 even guaranteed housing and transportation. Clearly, the status quo is broken. Domestic American workers simply are not being found to fill agricultural jobs. Our own government estimated that half of the total 1.6 million agricultural work force are not legally authorized to work in this country. That estimate is probably low; it's based on self-disclosure by illegal workers to government interviewers. Some actually have suggested that there is no labor shortage, because there are plenty of illegal workers. This is not an acceptable answer. Congress has shown its commitment over the past few years to improve the security of our borders, both in the 1996 immigration law and in subsequent appropriations. Between computerized checking by the Social Security Administration and audits and raids by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, more and more employers are discovering they have undocumented employees; and more and more workers here illegally are being discovered and evicted from their jobs. Outside of H-2A, employers have no reliable assurance that their employees are legal. It's worse than a Catch-22, the law actually punishes the employer who could be called ``too diligent'' in inquiring into the identification documents of prospective workers. 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 H-2A status quo is complicated and legalistic. DOL's compliance manual alone is 325 pages. 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. Finally, the grower can't even count on his or her government to do its job. A General Accounting Office study found that, in more than 40 percent of the cases in which employers filed H-2A applications at least 60 days before the date of need, the DOL missed statutory deadlines in processing them. The solution we need is the AgJOBS Act of 2001. This is win-win legislation. It will elevate and protect the rights, working conditions, and safety of workers. It will help workers, first domestic American workers, then other workers already here, then foreign guest workers, find the jobs they want and need. It will assure growers of a stable, legal supply of workers, within a program that recognizes market realities. The adjusted-worker provisions also will give growers one-time assistance in adjusting to the new labor market realities of the 21st Century. It will assure all Americans of a safe, consistent, affordable food supply. The nation needs AgJOBS. I invite the rest of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors; and I urge the Senate and the House to act promptly to enact this legislation into law. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be included in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, recently the Air Force revealed as part of its programmed budget decision its plan to cut the B-1B force structure by more than one-third. This has a substantial impact on a variety of Air Force bases that currently have a B-1B mission, and actually eliminates the B-1B entirely from Mountain Home Air Force Base in my State, from McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas, and from Robbins Air Force Base in Georgia. Such a drawdown in the B-1B fleet has the same national impact as would BRAC. Clearly, decisions of this magnitude should not be made without consultation with Congress. There was no opportunity for advice and consent on the part of the Air Force or the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Therefore, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Roberts to preempt any precipitous action by the Department of Defense that could circumvent the right of Congress to review such a significant change in our Air Force defense structure. This amendment will prevent any 2001 funds from being used for the preparation of retiring, dismantling, or reassigning any portion of the B-1B fleet. This would allow Congress the necessary time to consider the significance of the Air Force's decision and its impact with regard to the fiscal year 2002 defense budget. The B-1B satisfies a very specific warfighting requirement as our fastest long-range strategic bomber capable of flying intercontinental missions without refueling. With its flexible weapons payloads and a high carrying capacity, it is extremely effective against time- sensitive and mobile targets. While cutting the force structure is advocated as a means of cost savings and weapons upgrade, it comes at a significant national security cost. Removal of the B-1B from Mountain Home Air Force Base calls into question DOD's support of the composite wing which is the basis for the air expeditionary wing concept and raises other long-term strategic and mission questions. The composite wing is our Nation's ``911 call'' in times of conflict that require rapid reaction and deployment over long distances. Do we want to eliminate our nation's 911 call, particularly in light of a future defense strategy that requires the increase capabilities that the B-1B offers as a long-range, low-altitude, fast-penetration bomber? Mountain Home Air Force Base is unique. At Mountain Home, we train our men and women in uniform as they are expected to fight by bringing together the composite wing and an adjacent premier training range with significant results that will ensure that we are the next generation air power leader. We have composite wing training twice a month, premier night low-altitude training, dissimilar air combat training, and the current composite wing configuration fulfills the air expeditionary wing requirement 100 percent. Without the B1-B in the composite wing, our target load capability is reduced by 60 percent. Removal of the B1-B from the three bases will actually increase costs while reducing operational readiness: The B1 missions for the National Guard at McConnell and Robbins Air Force bases have a 15 percent higher mission capable rate than active duty units at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas and Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, with 25 percent less cost per flying hour, due to decreased wear and tear on the aircraft. Also, the National Guard repairs B-1 engines for the whole fleet at 60 percent of the depot cost. As a result of the high costs associated with traveling to others bases for training, other B1-B wings from Dyess Air Force Base and Ellsworth Air Force Base take part only once a year in composite wing training, whereas the B1-B wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base conducts this type of training twenty four times per year. The result is that aviators from Mountain Home are rated higher in operational inspections and training because of the enhanced training opportunities which they receive at reduced cost to the government. The Department of Defense shouldn't make budget decisions which change major national security objectives without congressional review. Military budget decision should be made for the right reasons and not be based on playing political favors, especially when it impacts our operational capability and readiness, and will cost the government more money in the long run. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will provide Congress with time to review the Air Force's decision and its effects on our national defense structure. I have another amendment for proposal that is to be drafted and that I believe the ranking member will offer before the 6 o'clock deadline. I will speak briefly to that amendment. It deals with grain and commodity sales to Israel. Israel, as we all know, began to receive cash transfer assistance in 1979 which replaced, in part, commodity import program assistance. In lieu of assistance specifically for commodity purchases, Israel agreed to continue to purchase United States grain, of which it has purchased 1.6 million metric tons every year since, or until this year, 2001, and ship half of it in privately owned United States-flagged commercial vessels. That, in essence, was the agreement in 1979. Despite a level of United States aid in every year since 1984 that has been higher than the 1979-1983 level, Israel never increased its grain imports. That was kind of the quid pro quo: As our rates increased, support would go up, and so would their purchases of commodities. Had proportionality been the test, Israel would have reached the 2.45 million tons at least at one point. It never has. However, Israel has consistently cited proportionality in reference to the 2001 Foreign Operations appropriation act in stating its intent to cut purchases of approximately 1.2 million metric tons in this fiscal year. This cut is disproportionately greater than the reduction of the U.S. aid from the 2000-2001 fiscal period and is not consistent with congressional intent. My amendment, which will be proposed later this afternoon, reshapes this, ensuring that a side letter agreement, with the terms of at least as favorable treatment as those in the year 2001, would be more consistent with past congressional intent and previous bilateral relations. Proportionality is something that I don't think can be or should be effectively argued whereas they did not respond when our aid increases went up. We will be bringing a letter to the floor insisting that Israel stay consistent with what was agreed to following 1979 as it related to turning, if you will, commodity import programs into cash transfer assistance. We think we have honored our agreement with Israel. The amendment simply requires them to honor their agreement with us. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.