Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member for their accommodations.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 16, 2005, at 2 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on Earth Island Institute vs. Ruthenbeck. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC, 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics at 202-224-2878 or Kristina Rolph at 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding that for the remainder of the day, we have completed work on budget reconciliation and we are about to move to the Agriculture appropriations conference. I understand Chairman Bennett is on his way to the floor, and as soon as he gets here I will yield, but I thought for the few moments that remain prior to that, I would discuss that very important appropriations conference we will soon be discussing. The reason I want to do that is because I made an effort during the appropriations conference to deal with what I believe is a major issue threatening American agriculture today that the Congress has largely ignored at this moment, and the courts are now working their will and the trial bar is working its will at the moment to try to change the intent of law. The agricultural industry is, I think, very concerned about litigation actions being taken to apply the Superfund law, referred to as CERCLA, and its counterpart, the Community Right to Know Act, better known as EPCRA, to emissions or discharges primarily from livestock and poultry waste produced during the normal course of farming operations. Someone would say, You mean a dairy farm or a poultry operation ought to be plunged into Superfund? Well, that is exactly what is being attempted at this moment and, of course, we would say no. The reason we say no is because when those laws were created by Congress, agriculture was clearly exempt. It was intended to be and it was exempt at that time. If you were to put agriculture into the CERCLA/EPCRA issue, according to EPA's own description, then you have changed the whole dynamics. According to the EPA's own description, the Superfund law is ``the Federal Government's program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the Superfund program, abandoned, accidentally spilled, or illegally dumped hazardous wastes that pose a current or future threat to human health or the environment are cleaned up.'' That is the responsibility of EPA under that issue. Are dairies and feedlots uncontrolled and abandoned hazardous waste sites? That is what we are talking about at this moment. EPA goes on to say that ``the Superfund law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and allowed the Federal Government to respond to releases or potential releases of hazardous wastes that might harm people or the environment. The tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.'' The question is, if we allow the courts and the legal process to drive those in agriculture into EPCRA and into CERCLA--again the Superfund law and the Community Right to Know law--is Congress then ready to appropriate moneys for other concentrated herd releases that might result? Should dairies, poultry farms, farmer-owned cooperatives, and others be required to pay into Superfund as the nuclear laboratories and the petroleum industry do? That was never the intent of Congress, and in trying to speak to that issue, Congress has to date been silent because environmental groups have moved in and are standing at the doors of some of my colleagues, wringing their hands and saying oh, no, no, communities have the right to know and it ought to be included in all of this, even though the law says not. Now, that is not to say that these agricultural entities of the day are not responsible for clean air and clean water. They are under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. They work with EPA in those standards. They work with their State environmental councils and environmental departments to meet those kinds of standards. What we are talking about is a legal issue attempting to shift, if you will, these responsibilities away from the intent of the law, as spoken to so very clearly by this Congress in the creation of those two entities, EPCRA and CERCLA. Another provision of the Superfund law allows EPA to fine violators up to $27,500 per day. Does that sound like a sum tailored to fit a farmer? Environmental groups would have you think that, well, you know, this is only for the big boys, the big operators. But then they do not define big. They say, well, large concentrated herd areas. It is the small versus large issue. Once it is well established that large operators in American agriculture are required to comply under these acts and meet the standards of the acts, any of us who have ever watched the progress or the evolution or the migration of law through the courts over time know it is only a moment in time before the small operator is included. I made an effort during Agriculture appropriations and Agriculture appropriations conferences to clarify this issue and to say once again very clearly to the American public the intent of the laws of Superfund and Community Right to Know, and those intents were very clear--not to include American agriculture. It isn't the big versus small issue at all. It is where do you rest the responsibility on the issue. It is not to say that American agriculture doesn't have a responsibility. Of course, they do. And they are fulfilling that responsibility under State law, under county zoning, under EPA, under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. These are issues that I hope this Congress will soon address. As to my amendment that I attempted, that the Republicans in the Senate did support in the conference, the conference collapsed itself so that it would not have to deal with this ``thorny issue'' of the moment; it walked away from the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture that supported our effort and the Southern Association of State Departments of Agriculture because at the State level, State Departments of Agriculture get it, they understand it, and they know this has to be clarified. We cannot let the trial bar, if you will, and communities of interest try to rewrite public policy through the court process. That is exactly what is going on today. Several lawsuits have been filed in this effort. I am certainly going to be back, as I know many of my colleagues will, in attempting to deal with this very important issue. I do respect what Chairman Bennett had to do to move the Agriculture appropriations conference forward. I had hoped we could get the CERCLA and EPCRA amendment into the conference, but it is not here. The conference is silent to it. The conference did good work. I am pleased to see that we could get as far as we could get in a variety of issues. The chairman and the ranking member are now in the Chamber. They had a tough road to meet budget reconciliation with what they were allocated. I know that was difficult, and I appreciate the work my staff was able to do with the chairman and the ranking member's staffs to get where we got with what we have today. I wish we had my amendment. I don't want those who say they stand for agriculture walking away from this issue and allowing the courts to rewrite public policy. If we are responsible practitioners of public policy--and that is what we are--then this is an issue we well ought to take on. Every State in the Nation has this problem today, and we ought not let the bar, the courts, and a few interested parties rewrite our laws. I hope we can address this again at another time. I do appreciate the work that was done. There were a lot of issues left on the table in this conference I hoped we could have addressed, that we could then get to, certainly those which dealt with healthy forests, categoric exclusions, and other issues, but that is debate for another day. The chairman is in the Chamber. It is 6 o'clock. It is his time to bring forth the Agriculture appropriations conference report. I thought I would use some of the limited time we have to debate this important appropriations conference report. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come this morning to speak about a need for fiscal responsibility. Over 200 years ago, George Washington warned that ``Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it can be a dangerous servant or a fearful master.'' Even when government functions properly as a servant, Washington observed, it is dangerous. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about--and to urge a need for something to happen in this Senate and in this Congress--fiscal responsibility. While Congress has been talking about spending measure after spending measure over the past several weeks, Americans have been talking about Congress' loose spending of their tax dollars. What many lawmakers have referred to as the fiscal policy of the Government has come to mean nothing more than the Government's dangerous tendency toward fiscal recklessness. Fiscal responsibility is premised on the simple concept that less is more. Less government spending means more freedom for individual Americans and increased levels of economic activity and rates of economic growth for the country. Several studies confirm this. A Public Finance Review study indicated that: ``Higher total government expenditure, no matter how financed, is associated with a lower growth rate of real per capita gross state product.'' A study by the Journal of Monetary Economics found that: ``There is substantial crowding out of private spending by government spending. Permanent changes in government spending lead to a negative wealth effect.'' And an International Monetary Fund study showed that: ``Average growth for the preceding 5-year period was higher in countries with small governments both periods.'' The cumulative evidence in these studies suggests one important thing--government spending hampers the economic growth of our country. Even more than this, the growth of government spending is economically destructive. Every dollar the government spends is one taken from an American, and is one less dollar in the productive, private sector economy. Every dollar the government spends to fund agencies imposes large costs on the economy's productive sector, no matter how small the agency. Every dollar the government spends on programs such as welfare and unemployment insurance encourages bad behavior by providing incentives for Americans to remain unemployed and choose leisure over work. Every dollar the government spends this way goes to making Americans passive supplicants rather than active citizens, particularly at a time when the number of those dependent on the government is growing and the number supporting it is shrinking. We have been seeing those numbers talked about over the last good number of years--who is taxed and who is not, who is paying in to the Government versus who is not. We are now edging toward 50 percent of the American people not paying taxes, and yet we still hear this great debate in the Senate about, well, the tax cuts are only for the wealthy. The tax cuts are for people who pay taxes versus those who do not pay taxes. There is a very important reality check that has to occur out there. When I am home visiting with folks at our town meetings and I say a family of four making $27,000 to $30,000 a year does not pay Federal taxes anymore, that is a fact. Yet somehow we get this rich versus poor debate in this Chamber. It is really those who pay taxes versus those who do not pay taxes and become the recipients of the largesse of Government. Every dollar the Government spends to subsidize both health care and education distorts competitive processes in the marketplace and makes States increasingly more dependent, and their budgets become distorted because they are the ones that have had that historic Government responsibility. Every dollar the Government spends to deliver services is one that should be in the private sector allowing the marketplace to choose its efficiency and its effectiveness. There are some interesting figures. In 2005, Washington spent $2.470 trillion, raised $2.154 trillion, and ran a $317 billion budget deficit. This deficit is 2.5 percent of gross domestic product. Some will say that is the lowest ever; it doesn't mean anything. $317 billion is a lot of money. Spending increased by 8 percent in 2005 and is up 33 percent overall since 2001. In 2005, inflation-adjusted federal spending neared $22,000 per household, the highest level since World War II. Federal spending has increased by 33 percent since 2001, from $1.863 trillion to $2.470 trillion. Defense and 9/11-related costs have only accounted for a smaller-than-expected portion of this: From 2001 to 2003, spending expanded by $296 billion, 45 percent of which went to defense and 9/11-related costs, and 55 percent of which went to new Federal spending unrelated to defense and 9/11. This is an 11 percent jump in Federal spending, the fastest growth in a decade. From 2001 to 2005, discretionary spending surged 48 percent, from $649 billion to $969 billion. Current spending on entitlement consumes nearly 60 percent of all program spending, a record 10.8 percent of gross domestic product, and is projected to nearly double over the next decade. Long-term trends project the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to jump from 8.4 percent of GDP in 2005 to 18.9 percent of GDP by 2050. Federal program spending is projected to reach 27.6 percent of GDP by 2050. By 2050, our children and our children's children will be footing the bill for our current fiscal irresponsibility. Nearly 200 hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson said that ``although a republican government is slow to move, yet once in motion, its momentum becomes irresistible.'' There was a time not too long ago when Republicans stood up, made the case for smaller government, and made it happen. From 1998 to 2001, we did this by enjoying record budget surpluses. The time for action is upon us once again. The Federal Government's spending momentum, however, makes tax cuts, reductions in pork, and slashes in subsidies only first steps toward a real solution. The only long-term, fundamental, permanent reform that would effectively dispel the danger of current fiscal recklessness and restore fiscal responsibility is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution like the one I reintroduced earlier this year. Jefferson once said, ``with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt than they may pay?'' I think he's right and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution to restore the past principles of fiscal responsibility envisioned by the Founding Fathers and to safeguard the future by providing a bill of economic rights for our children. It is important we understand the impact that Federal spending has, and it is clearly time some of us come to the floor and challenge all of us to recognize what we are doing, where we are going, and the amount of money being spent. Now we recognize more than ever before, with the natural disasters hitting our country that are unprecedented in their impact on human lives, that we have a new responsibility to help those citizens who have lost everything gain a little back. Somehow we think we can go on doing that at our current level of spending, but it is time we get a little realistic about some belt tightening around here, even if it is at last year's rate of spending versus an increased level of spending for the next budget. I think Americans want us to wake up, realize what we are doing, and the impact this kind of spending has both in the short term on our economy and in the long term on our economy both for us, our children, and our grandchildren. I thank the Senator from Colorado for yielding.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that S. 405, a bill to provide for the conveyance of certain public land in Clark County, NV, for use as a heliport, has been added to the agenda of the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests scheduled for Wednesday, November 2 at 2 p.m. in Room SD-366. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics (202-224-2878), Dick Bouts (202-224-7545), or Kristina Rolph (202-224-8276) of the Committee staff.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the last few minutes, I have listened with great interest to the Senator from Iowa reading a diary of the experience of a dedicated volunteer, obviously, to help out with Katrina victims in Louisiana and Mississippi. I found it most fascinating and also most frustrating, as I think the Senator did and certainly the person involved. I want to also say ``happy birthday'' to Barbara Grassley. I hope the Senator will communicate that to her. My wife Suzanne and I know Barbara and Chuck well, and I extend a ``happy birthday'' from the Craig family to Barbara. While I was home in Idaho this past week, like many of us who were in our home States, I held a series of town meetings across the State. The most often asked question at those open town meeting forums was about deficit spending and the cost of Katrina and the overall concern Idahoans have about Katrina and Katrina victims. As the Senator from Iowa spoke, it is so true of Idaho and other States across the Nation where tremendous voluntary efforts have poured out in behalf of the citizens of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. They have gone through these literally catastrophic experiences of a magnitude that none of us certainly in Idaho have every experienced. While that concern is real and the voluntary and contributive effort is of a record like none we have ever seen in our country, I truly believe there is a growing concern about the wise and responsible and careful use of the tax dollars. As Idahoans and Americans send their time and their generosity to the South, we are also sending our tax dollars. Clearly we want them spent carefully and wisely. Prior to the recess, Congress held hearings to examine the fallacies of the response to Hurricane Katrina. There was much criticism--most of it, in part, from the press and some of it not as well-founded as we find out as expressed at the time--about what was done, what could be done, and what should be done appropriately to handle the literally billions of dollars headed south to help the citizens of those States. In 5 or 10 years I hope we will not be conducting the same backward- looking hearings on how Federal dollars were spent, how waste, fraud, and abuse occurred in the Gulf States, and how it might have been prevented as we are looking backward today to see why the response to Katrina was so mishandled. Instead of looking back, we are now in a position to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse by acting responsibly now to control and offset Government spending. There are numerous ways for Congress to do this, but perhaps it is noteworthy to first talk about the congressional measures that will not, in my opinion, do it appropriately. Senate bill 1766, the Hurricane Katrina Disaster Relief and Economic Recovery Act, known as the Pelican Project, whatever you call the bill, $250 billion of what I have examined and referred to as a pork-stuffed package, costing more than the Louisiana Purchase adjusted for inflation, is not the way to go. Some of the more noteworthy ``relief provisions'' in the bill include $8 million for an alligator farm, $25 million for sugarcane research and, of course, the $35 million to restore the seafood industry. At this time, it is questionable whether Federal tax dollars ought to be spent in those categories. However, overshadowing all of that, and what is worse, is the bill's whopping $40 billion requested not by but for the Army Corps of Engineers projects, many of which were unrelated to the flood projects or the flood protection. To put this in perspective, the overall national Army Corps of Engineers budget for fiscal year 2005 was $4 billion, one-tenth of what was proposed for Louisiana. The Louisiana tradition of overreaching Corps projects makes this request, I guess, a little less surprising. Take, for example, the Industrial Canal lock navigation project in New Orleans. In 2000, the Corps launched a $750 million lock navigation project on the Industrial Canal in New Orleans, the most expensive single lock project in history. The Corps justified its massive project by predicting barge traffic on the canal would increase when traffic, in fact, was decreasing, and had decreased 50 percent since 1988. Despite the economic and social concerns the project posed, Louisiana consistently welcomed it. The Industrial Canal has received more than $70 million over the last few years. In the 2006 budget, the President provided no funding for the Industrial Canal. However, the House--that is right--and this Senate pumped nearly $15 million into the project. If we are wondering where the money came from, one of the programs the Senate cut in the same year was the one of the national priority projects. That is, the west bank and vicinity hurricane protection project of New Orleans. We cut that to do something else. Indeed, one of the levees that lined the Industrial Canal failed after Hurricane Katrina hit, inundating the lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans with floodwater. Yet that is where the money was cut to fund the canal itself. Louisiana has never suffered from a lack of Army Corps funding. Over the last 5 years the State reportedly has received $1.9 billion in Corps funds, far more than any other State. If Hurricane Katrina stood for anything other than Mother Nature's catastrophic power, it is Louisiana, in my opinion, and the catastrophic failure to prioritize public interest projects over what now appears to be pork. S. 1776 is no different. The bill's working group on Corps response projects was dominated by special interest lobbyists, with one insider reportedly expressing concern that the focus was not on protecting Louisiana. In addition, the bill would exempt any Corps projects from provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act and it would also waive the usual Corps cost-sharing requirements, thus making taxpayers foot the entire bill. At a time of catastrophic emergency, I would be willing to look at something such as that. At the same time, these are material dollars that are going. Clearly, they deserve our oversight. The taxpayer has already paid, dutifully and dearly, for Katrina relief. Thus far, $62.3 billion in emergency supplemental funding has been authorized for immediate relief and response needs for victims of Katrina. However, the Federal Government's role in disaster relief, as provided by existing law, is only one of support to State and local governments and agencies. The Stafford Act, which provides the statutory framework for Presidential declaration of an emergency or major disaster, explicitly states that Federal resources should supplement, not replace, State and local resources for disaster relief. We understand the magnitude and we understand, in the case of Mississippi and Louisiana, major wipeouts of a kind we have never seen before. But still, let's not change the laws and the relationships. Let's keep the balance in mind as this Congress decides, and I hope tracks and, most importantly, monitors where those dollars go and how they will be spent. With an act of supplementary spending also comes the duty of offsetting. Before Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Budget Office projected the 2005 deficit would total $331 billion. The picture, of course, is only bleaker now. Numerous groups have offered comprehensive savings proposals that would offset the massive costs of Katrina relief. The Republican Study Committee, the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Cato Institute, American Enterprise, the Heritage Foundation, all have come up with a variety of proposals not to deficit spend all of it but to see some reasonable belt tightening at the Federal level and some--not all--of the disaster relief being able to come out of current budgets. In addition to these savings proposals, the Senate majority leader recently proposed a rescission package that would rescind unnecessary spending. A few weeks ago, President Bush became directly involved when he called on Congress to enact his proposed cuts in both mandatory and discretionary spending. There is little we can change about Katrina. Yet the focus still seems to be on finding who is responsible for the response or the lack of response. We are always responsible for the health of our Government, for the wise use of hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and for ensuring that America's future generations do not foot the bill for all of the current fiscal recklessness. The spending will be the subject of both public and Government scrutiny for future years, but we can prevent any of the waste or the fraud or abuse of those moneys that will occur or could occur. That job is now. That is our responsibility as a Congress. I urge my colleagues to work with the Senators from Louisiana and Mississippi. Clearly, the need is real, and no one in any way denies that. But there is a responsibility here, a fundamental responsibility, as we literally send billions upon billions of dollars south to rebuild and reshape and refurbish the economies of those States, that those dollars be spent wisely, that those dollars be spent cautiously, and that no one individual benefit in an extraordinary, abusive, or fraudulent way. That is the responsibility of this Congress that I take most sincerely and I know most of my colleagues do. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, at 2 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1541, to protect, conserve, and restore public lands administered by the Department of the Interior or the Forest Service and adjacent land through cooperative cost-share grants to control and mitigate the spread of invasive species, and for other purposes; S. 1548, to provide for the conveyance of certain Forest Service land to the city of Coffman Cove, Alaska; S. 1552, to amend Public Law 97-435 to extend the authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to release certain conditions contained in a patent concerning certain lands conveyed by the United States to Eastern Washington University until December 31, 2009; and H.R. 482, to provide for a land exchange involving Federal lands in the Lincoln National Forest in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics (202-224-2878), Dick Bouts (202-224-7545), or Kristina Rolph (202-224-8276) of the Committee staff.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 26, 2005, at 2 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the implementation of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, P.L. 108-447 by the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics at 202-224-2878 or Kristina Rolph at 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, our veterans deserve all a grateful nation can give them. Over the last 6 years we have increased the Veterans budget by over $3 billion a year. Although the Senator from Michigan is right about the dustup this year, we still did it because America is grateful for those who serve in harm's way. While all veterans are entitled, should we start a new entitlement program, one that is now out of control, that we cannot monitor on a yearly basis as we do through the appropriating process and the authorizing process? The Senator is proposing a new entitlement program. But she is also saying something else. She is not saying those who served is the baseline of the formula. She is saying those who are entitled. And there is a very real difference between those who are entitled and eligible versus those who seek service because of need. We pay for those who seek service based on their eligibility. We do not create a new entitlement program. Ask yourselves, do you want to create a new entitlement program or do you want to do what we are doing now, providing the necessary resources on an annual basis to meet the needs of America's veterans? I ask Members to vote no. Do not waive the Budget Act. Do not create a new entitlement program and basically take it out of the hands of the Congress and put it in the hands of the VA. That is not what I think our veterans would want us to do.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing that will fix a problem that many of us thought was corrected 8 years ago. My legislation will close a loophole in the law that now allows capital offenders to be buried in America's national cemeteries. My legislation will ensure that no one who may be given a life sentence or who may be sentenced to death for murder will be honored at their funerals by the presence of a military funeral detail. And, finally, my legislation will direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of the Army, and other military service Secretaries to each prescribe a proactive process by which officials can ascertain whether there exists a burial or funeral honors prohibition on individuals who may have been capital offenders. In 1997, the Congress learned that the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombings--Timothy McVeigh--was, in fact, eligible for burial and memorialization in a VA national cemetery and, under certain circumstances, Arlington National Cemetery. Largely, but not exclusively, in response to McVeigh's eligibility, Public Law 105-116 was enacted to deny interment in Arlington National Cemetery, VA National Cemeteries, and State veterans' cemeteries funded with VA grants, to any person convicted of a Federal capital crime or a State capital crime for which a sentence of death or life imprisonment without parole is given. Later, in 2002, Public Law 107-330 was enacted to deny to capital offenders VA-provided flags, headstones and markers, and Presidential Memorial Certificates. The intent of the 1997 and 2002 laws was clear: We should not bury brutal murderers alongside America's honored dead and we should not provide memorialization benefits to those who have so dishonored themselves through their own post-service conduct. The circumstances surrounding the placement of the cremated remains of a convicted double-murderer--Russell Wayne Wagner--at Arlington National Cemetery in late July caused me, and many of my colleagues, to wonder what impact the 1997 law actually had. The media coverage of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist's Arlington Cemetery funeral only served to confirm my bewilderment: How could an individual like Wagner who committed such heinous acts be placed in the same hallowed ground as Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Thurgood Marshall, President Kennedy, and hundreds upon hundreds of servicemembers to whom this country owes its eternal respect? Russell Wayne Wagner's two life sentences carried with them the possibility of parole. The 1997 law only bars national cemetery interment to State capital offenders sentenced to death or life in prison without parole. Thus, we have our first example of the ``parole loophole.'' To further explore how wide the ``parole loophole'' is for State capital offenders, I asked the Congressional Research Service to analyze the sentencing of Dennis Rader, the infamous ``BTK serial killer,''--``BTK'' being short for Rader's method to dispose of his 10 victims: Bind, Torture, Kill. Rader was given ten consecutive life terms for which he must serve a minimum of 175 years in prison. However, because the Kansas law under which Rader was tried did not allow for a sentence of death, nor did it allow for a sentence of life without parole, CRS concluded that, as an honorably discharged veteran of the Air Force, ``it would appear that he is not statutorily precluded from interment in a national cemetery.'' If the 1997 law cannot prevent the interment of a notorious serial killer, then what good is it? I called a hearing in September to find an answer to that question. The Committee heard from Mr. Vernon Davis, son of Wagner's victims, who described in vivid detail how Wagner repeatedly stabbed his elderly parents to death. I was so astounded that an individual who committed such a cowardly action could be buried at Arlington that I immediately introduced legislation--S. 1759--to have his remains removed. The Committee also heard from VA and Arlington cemetery officials who described the process that is in place to deny burial in national cemeteries to capital offenders. Unfortunately, the process appears to be a passive one. The Deputy Superintendent at Arlington told me that Arlington officials do not even ask whether a person on whose behalf burial is sought is a convicted capital offender. While I understand that finding out such information needs to be handled delicately and with tact, to have no screening process at all is unacceptable. Finally, we heard the unified testimony of 5 veterans' organizations, who reminded us that decisions to take away benefits earned by virtue of honorable military service should never be made without careful, reasoned deliberation. Based on the testimony from the Committee's hearing, I have joined with my colleagues from Kansas--Senators Roberts and Brownback--in introducing this legislation today. Section 1 of the legislation would remove the language in law that provides capital offenders--like Wagner and the BTK Killer--with their continued burial eligibility. Furthermore, to address situations where a capital offender may have plea-bargained his or her way out of a death or life sentence, section 1 would remove the language in statute that ties the prohibition of cemetery burial to a capital crime sentence that was received and would replace it with language tying the prohibition to a capital crime sentence that may be received. This statutory language change would recognize that while the actual sentence for those who commit heinous acts may vary, the underlying action meriting those criminal sentences should be treated equally for purposes of burial prohibition. Section 2 of the legislation would deny the provision of military honors and burial at a military cemetery of a person convicted of a Federal capital crime or a State capital crime for which a life sentence or the death penalty may be imposed. Section 3 would deny funeral honors--where at least two members of the Armed Forces are made available at veterans' funerals to fold and present the American flag, and play Taps--to those same persons, irrespective of whether burial is sought at national, state, or private cemeteries. Finally, section 4 of the legislation would require the appropriate military service and VA to each prescribe regulations to ensure that a person is neither buried, nor provided funeral honors, before a good- faith effort is made to determine whether such person is ineligible as a capital offender. This legislation is a necessary reform to the 1997 law. Let me be clear that while the effect of the legislation would be to take away benefits that were otherwise earned by honorable military service, the intent of it is not punitive. Rather, my intention is to preserve the dignity of America's national cemeteries. President Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address at one of our Nation's first, and most revered, national cemeteries. Then he spoke of the ``honored dead'' who gave their ``last full measure of devotion.'' My legislation will ensure that we bring no dishonor to those who belong in our national cemeteries by inappropriately honoring those who, by their own actions, do not. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing that will fix a problem that many of us thought was corrected 8 years ago. My legislation will close a loophole in the law that now allows capital offenders to be buried in America's national cemeteries. My legislation will ensure that no one who may be given a life sentence or who may be sentenced to death for murder will be honored at their funerals by the presence of a military funeral detail. And, finally, my legislation will direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of the Army, and other military service Secretaries to each prescribe a proactive process by which officials can ascertain whether there exists a burial or funeral honors prohibition on individuals who may have been capital offenders. In 1997, the Congress learned that the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombings--Timothy McVeigh--was, in fact, eligible for burial and memorialization in a VA national cemetery and, under certain circumstances, Arlington National Cemetery. Largely, but not exclusively, in response to McVeigh's eligibility, Public Law 105-116 was enacted to deny interment in Arlington National Cemetery, VA National Cemeteries, and State veterans' cemeteries funded with VA grants, to any person convicted of a Federal capital crime or a State capital crime for which a sentence of death or life imprisonment without parole is given. Later, in 2002, Public Law 107-330 was enacted to deny to capital offenders VA-provided flags, headstones and markers, and Presidential Memorial Certificates. The intent of the 1997 and 2002 laws was clear: We should not bury brutal murderers alongside America's honored dead and we should not provide memorialization benefits to those who have so dishonored themselves through their own post-service conduct. The circumstances surrounding the placement of the cremated remains of a convicted double-murderer--Russell Wayne Wagner--at Arlington National Cemetery in late July caused me, and many of my colleagues, to wonder what impact the 1997 law actually had. The media coverage of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist's Arlington Cemetery funeral only served to confirm my bewilderment: How could an individual like Wagner who committed such heinous acts be placed in the same hallowed ground as Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Thurgood Marshall, President Kennedy, and hundreds upon hundreds of servicemembers to whom this country owes its eternal respect? Russell Wayne Wagner's two life sentences carried with them the possibility of parole. The 1997 law only bars national cemetery interment to State capital offenders sentenced to death or life in prison without parole. Thus, we have our first example of the ``parole loophole.'' To further explore how wide the ``parole loophole'' is for State capital offenders, I asked the Congressional Research Service to analyze the sentencing of Dennis Rader, the infamous ``BTK serial killer,''--``BTK'' being short for Rader's method to dispose of his 10 victims: Bind, Torture, Kill. Rader was given ten consecutive life terms for which he must serve a minimum of 175 years in prison. However, because the Kansas law under which Rader was tried did not allow for a sentence of death, nor did it allow for a sentence of life without parole, CRS concluded that, as an honorably discharged veteran of the Air Force, ``it would appear that he is not statutorily precluded from interment in a national cemetery.'' If the 1997 law cannot prevent the interment of a notorious serial killer, then what good is it? I called a hearing in September to find an answer to that question. The Committee heard from Mr. Vernon Davis, son of Wagner's victims, who described in vivid detail how Wagner repeatedly stabbed his elderly parents to death. I was so astounded that an individual who committed such a cowardly action could be buried at Arlington that I immediately introduced legislation--S. 1759--to have his remains removed. The Committee also heard from VA and Arlington cemetery officials who described the process that is in place to deny burial in national cemeteries to capital offenders. Unfortunately, the process appears to be a passive one. The Deputy Superintendent at Arlington told me that Arlington officials do not even ask whether a person on whose behalf burial is sought is a convicted capital offender. While I understand that finding out such information needs to be handled delicately and with tact, to have no screening process at all is unacceptable. Finally, we heard the unified testimony of 5 veterans' organizations, who reminded us that decisions to take away benefits earned by virtue of honorable military service should never be made without careful, reasoned deliberation. Based on the testimony from the Committee's hearing, I have joined with my colleagues from Kansas--Senators Roberts and Brownback--in introducing this legislation today. Section 1 of the legislation would remove the language in law that provides capital offenders--like Wagner and the BTK Killer--with their continued burial eligibility. Furthermore, to address situations where a capital offender may have plea-bargained his or her way out of a death or life sentence, section 1 would remove the language in statute that ties the prohibition of cemetery burial to a capital crime sentence that was received and would replace it with language tying the prohibition to a capital crime sentence that may be received. This statutory language change would recognize that while the actual sentence for those who commit heinous acts may vary, the underlying action meriting those criminal sentences should be treated equally for purposes of burial prohibition. Section 2 of the legislation would deny the provision of military honors and burial at a military cemetery of a person convicted of a Federal capital crime or a State capital crime for which a life sentence or the death penalty may be imposed. Section 3 would deny funeral honors--where at least two members of the Armed Forces are made available at veterans' funerals to fold and present the American flag, and play Taps--to those same persons, irrespective of whether burial is sought at national, state, or private cemeteries. Finally, section 4 of the legislation would require the appropriate military service and VA to each prescribe regulations to ensure that a person is neither buried, nor provided funeral honors, before a good- faith effort is made to determine whether such person is ineligible as a capital offender. This legislation is a necessary reform to the 1997 law. Let me be clear that while the effect of the legislation would be to take away benefits that were otherwise earned by honorable military service, the intent of it is not punitive. Rather, my intention is to preserve the dignity of America's national cemeteries. President Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address at one of our Nation's first, and most revered, national cemeteries. Then he spoke of the ``honored dead'' who gave their ``last full measure of devotion.'' My legislation will ensure that we bring no dishonor to those who belong in our national cemeteries by inappropriately honoring those who, by their own actions, do not. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution that honors the extraordinary heroics exhibited by employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the response to the catastrophic conditions caused by Hurricane Katrina. The Department of Veterans Affairs operates 11 medical centers, 18 community-based outpatient clinics, three regional offices, and eight national cemeteries in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Throughout this tragedy, VA moved employees, their families, equipment, and even patients from many of these places. Incredibly with over 1,000 people evacuated in total, not one life was lost. While it is impossible for me to recognize every act of bravery and courage exhibited, I would be remiss if I did not highlight the incredible story of two VA nurses and their efforts to ensure continued patient care during the aftermath of Katrina. These two nurses not only braved the danger of the storm, but they risked their own lives to ensure that their patients could survive. These two women fed their own water supply to their patients, and, even more incredibly, they then administered intravenous fluids to one another to stay hydrated so that they could continue to deliver care. Clear1y, this was going far above and beyond the call of duty. The example set by these two courageous women must be recognized. I also want to note that VA's success in responding to this storm was largely due to the extensive preparation by VA workers before Katrina hit the Gulf Region. This preparation ensured the successful administration of continued medical care to veterans upon relocation as well as the safe evacuation of all staff and their families. Before the storm hit, VA workers oversaw the evacuation of 166 patients in Mississippi and Louisiana. In addition, VA workers had the foresight to transfer copies of electronic medical records from the New Orleans VA Medical Center to the VA facility in Houston so that those records would be available on a national level. The bottom line is that this careful preparation before the storm hit saved lives. The examples of sacrifice and heroics are countless. But, I don't want to forget those who simply stayed put in the right place and did their job--sometimes for days on end. I am speaking most specifically of the valiant efforts of the employees in the VA facilities throughout Texas. These dedicated doctors, nurses, and supporting staff worked countless hours providing medical assistance, shelter and comfort to the evacuated VA patients, employees, and their families. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, it is my distinct honor to commend the heroic efforts of VA workers throughout the country in this resolution. I am also pleased to note that Ranking Member Akaka has joined with me in expressing our sincere appreciation. The devastation of Hurricane Katrina is something with which we are all familiar. It gives me great pleasure to highlight the dedication, sacrifice, and courage of VA workers in light of the terrible devastation caused by what many have called the worst natural disaster in our Nation's history.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on needed improvements to defense acquisition processes and organizations.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 27 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1701, a bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to improve the reclamation of abandoned mines; and S. 961, a bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to preauthorize and reform the abandoned mine reclamation program and for other purposes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 27, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``Housing-Related Programs for the Poor: Can We Be Sure That Federal Assistance Is Getting to Those Who Need It Most?''

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on energy supplies in Eurasia and implications for U.S. energy security.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Alternative Personnel Systems: Assessing Progress in the Federal Government.''

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina. He so clearly lays out the foundational basis by which we ought to be reviewing nominees to our highest Court. At the same time, he brings a lot of valid criticism to those who would choose to be tremendously selective not by character but by philosophy of those who are sent to us to consider. Like many of our colleagues engaged in the confirmation process of John Roberts to the position of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I have been here before. Maybe that is one way of saying it. The last time John Roberts came before the Senate, he was confirmed for his position by unanimous consent. He was placed on the District of Columbia's Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest in the land as it relates to our judicial system. However, unlike most of our colleagues, I was a member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary at that time, and his was one of the first confirmations before the committee that session. That only increased my sense of duty to thoroughly review his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the court. Undoubtedly, one of the most serious duties of a Senator is the constitutional obligation and opportunity to confirm the President's judicial nominees. At that time I was satisfied that John Roberts was a superior candidate for the job. A review of his record for the past 20 months only proves that decision to have been the correct one. Not a single question has been raised as to his competence or his character during that time serving on the DC Circuit. Furthermore, in his time on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring an agenda to work with him in the morning. Rather, he takes an intellectual approach to each case, basing his rulings on the facts and the law, not any personal bias. To the extent there has been a debate over the nomination, it has not been about Judge Roberts' qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court. Rather, he has been subject to an ideological litmus test. I submit that this is not the job of the Senate. We are not social engineers, even though some of my colleagues might like to be, and it is not our role to pack the courts with members of certain ideologies. Judge Roberts points out that he is not standing for election, and appropriately so. I agree with this critical distinction. We are not here to debate his politics or whether we agree with them. Our duty is to give advice and consent to our President's nominations. To politicize this duty of supreme importance, I think is fundamentally wrong, but it is occurring with this nominee. For the last 2 weeks, we have been subjected to some of that rhetoric coming out of the Judiciary Committee which is purely political and an attempt to politicize the process. Politicizing the confirmation hearings runs contrary to the idea of an unbiased judiciary. As Judge Roberts himself has suggested, it undermines the integrity of that judicial process. That being the case, we must ask why anyone would want to bring issues of politics to the process. The simple answer is that opponents of Judge Roberts are not looking impartially. They want a nominee who will agree with their beliefs. Judge Roberts has said, time and time again, he would not engage in bargaining or state his beliefs on specific issues. Let me suggest that a Member who votes against this nominee because he will not state his position on a specific case or ruling is voting against an unbiased judiciary. In other words, they want a bias in the Court to fit their political beliefs instead of the unbiased Court that our Founding Fathers envisioned. While some seem bound and determined to inject politics into the Court and have applied intense pressure to secure his assistance in that effort, Judge Roberts has stood by his commitment to the rule of law, and that is what a judge should do. This speaks highly of his integrity, but again his integrity is not in question. No one had brought forth any evidence to suggest that he is not a person of high moral character. In fact, many of the Members who say they will vote against his confirmation say that he appears to be a very fine fellow--smart, witty, thoughtful. So where are they going and what are they attempting to dredge up? His judicial demeanor is also not in question. The overwhelming assessment of Judge Roberts' performance before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary is that he did an outstanding job. He remained calm, thoughtful, impartial, and unshaken. In a word, he was judicial. I said during my tenure on that committee and during confirmation processes, while I may agree or disagree, what I was looking for was the character of the individual, the judicial demeanor: How would he or she perform on the court? Would they bring integrity to the court in those kinds of rulings to which they would be subjecting their mind and their talent? Some believe that all documents related to Judge Roberts during his service as Deputy Solicitor General should be disclosed even though this would violate attorney-client and deliberate process privileges. He will not infringe upon past employers' rights and privileges. He knows this would discourage consultation and new ideas and reduce the effectiveness of the Office of Solicitor General. This is a man who truly exemplifies integrity. Although he is criticized for not releasing some documents, it is his integrity that will not allow that to happen. If it were not unethical to disclose these documents, I am sure the judge would release them. In fact, those that would not infringe upon his integrity have been released. We have reviewed some 76,000 pages of documents, including documents for more than 95 percent of the cases he worked on in the Solicitor General's Office. Our access has been restricted to a mere 16 out of 327 cases. Finding Judge Roberts unfit to be Chief Justice on the grounds of undisclosed privileged internal deliberations is not only unfair, I believe it is illegal and, at any test, it is ludicrous. Judge Roberts' competence is not being called into question, not in any sense by any Senator. It would be very difficult to find a better candidate anywhere to serve as Chief Justice. He seems to have done extremely well in whatever he has undertaken. Graduating summa cum laude says that this man is bright. Managing editor of the Harvard Law Review--that only comes to the top of the class. Later, he clerked for Judge Friendly of the U.S. court of appeals in Manhattan and for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. He has tried 39 cases before the Supreme Court, both as a private litigant and as a Government litigant while serving as the Deputy Solicitor General. Judge Roberts now serves, as I mentioned, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. His credentials are impeccable. This man deserves a unanimous vote, as he received 20 months ago. But that will not be the case today because some have chosen to inject politics into this process. Thank goodness Judge Roberts has stood unwaveringly not allowing that to happen when it comes to himself. His integrity is not in question. That is why he was nominated by the President of the United States to serve as the Chief Justice of our highest Court. He deserves my vote. He will get my vote. He deserves the vote of every Senator serving in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the expeditious way our leader and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies has brought this important appropriations bill to the floor. It is, in my opinion, without question, that we ought to try to deal with all of our appropriations bills this year, complete them individually, complete the total process. We have seen the difficult and confusing process of omnibus bills over the last couple of years. Clearly, this Congress ought to demonstrate to the American taxpayer that we can conduct our budgeting and our appropriating process in a reasonable and responsible fashion to move ahead. The chairman of the subcommittee is urging us to come to the floor if we have amendments and address them in a timely fashion, to see if we can complete work on this appropriations bill today. I appreciate that. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have worked closely with the chairman and the ranking member of this subcommittee to assure that we have adequately funded the Veterans' Administration. As our colleagues know--and certainly observers have known--we have had difficulty in effective and responsible projections of costs. As we have seen a ramping up of services to America's veterans and as the quality of veterans health care improves, there has been a substantially greater number of veterans who have chosen to use the veterans health care system to provide for their needs. As a result, H.R. 2528 provides $70.71 billion to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the highest amount of appropriated dollars in the history of the Department. Of this funding, $34.09 billion is discretionary funding, meaning spent across the spectrum of veterans services, which is $1.26 billion above the administration's request, and $23.32 billion is for medical services which is $1.3 billion above the administration's request. Not only did the administration come in at a higher number, but as the needs changed, Congress came in at an even higher number. That speaks clearly to our commitment to America's veterans, as we have always responded to their needs in what we believe to be a direct, straightforward way. The overall budget of Veterans Affairs has risen $22.5 billion or 47.5 percent, with average increases for all veterans at nearly 7.8 percent every year. I am talking about since the Bush administration took office. These increases more than double the growth of the entire Federal budget, which has increased by 4.14 percent. I am talking about the Department of Veterans Affairs. Anyone who says we are not meeting the obligation to America's veterans with unprecedented increases and increases that are substantially more than in other areas of our Federal budget simply hasn't looked at the numbers and the level of health care being provided. Health care funding alone has grown by $10 billion, or 52 percent, during the Bush administration. With that attention and response from the Congress and this President, VA has become a modern health care system, described in recent national publications as the best health care anywhere. Of course, that is exactly why we now see more veterans seeking veterans health care; it is not the health care of last resort. It is the health care of first choice. It is a modern, quality delivery system all of us can be proud of, not only because we are providing it but because it serves America's heroes in a way that we feel an appropriate obligation to do so. I thank Chairman Hutchison for the work she has done, and the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, for their cooperative effort with us as we have worked our way through this difficult funding process for veterans. The job is well done. The services and the resources provided are responsible and adequate for the serving of America's veterans. I am privileged to serve on this subcommittee, to work with the chairman and ranking member to accomplish this task. I also have the unique responsibility of serving as chairman of the authorizing Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I am pleased and proud of the work we are doing, not only for America's veterans today but for those who are soon to become America's veterans. The brave men and women serving us in the defense of our freedom in the war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming back. Many of them will be requiring significant services as they have been injured and found themselves in harm's way. Of course, that is our responsibility. We will not back from it in any way. America's veterans or America's serving men and women soon to be veterans need to know that this Congress has and will continue to address their needs in a responsible fashion, to serve them as we appropriately must, sometimes having to draw priorities but recognizing that those needing the care are going to get the care, the kind that is appropriate and responsible for America's heroes, America's veterans, and men and women currently serving in the armed services. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.