Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment numbered 1868 on behalf of Senator Salazar. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:10 today, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to Akaka amendment No. 1852, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to that vote; provided further that no other amendments be in order to the bill and that following disposition of the Akaka amendment, H.R. 2528 be read for a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage with no intervening action or debate; provided further that following the vote the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate. I finally ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to passage.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Senator Akaka is en route to the floor to make some final comments on his amendment prior to the vote. With that in mind, and that vote occurring at 3:10, I will take 5 minutes or less to debate in opposition to the Akaka amendment. I do this with great difficulty because the Senator is proposing additional funding in an area that we have already concentrated on, both in the appropriating subcommittee and in the authorizing committee. He is asking for an additional $10 million in the budget for the Veterans Readjustment Counseling Service. This would represent a $14 million increase for the service just this year and that is an increase of almost 15 percent in its budget. I agree the Veterans Readjustment Counseling Service does great work. They have taken on some additional roles, including the Global War on Terrorism Outreach Program, but this bill already provides a generous $4 million increase for this function and more broadly provides over $3 billion for veterans health care programs. I understand the Senator from Hawaii would like to focus some attention on this program with his amendment, but I would say to my colleagues that I believe the administration and the Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee, which I chair, has already focused the necessary needed additional attention on mental health and the counseling needed for our returning service members. We have also dialoged very directly with the Veterans' Administration and at this time they feel they are adequately funded. The bill I sponsored, S. 1182, which was just reported to the floor from the Veterans' Committee, contains numerous provisions to increase and provide access to mental health and counseling services. VA could hire marriage and family therapists as well as licensed medical health care counselors. Further, VA is directed to work on improving access to telehealth initiatives in our Vet Center Program, which VA has expressed a desire to do. Finally, I oppose the amendment because it would further reduce VA's information technology budget, which I think is critical. VA has made tremendous strides in improving its IT programs. It has made some errors, but clearly the benefits are outweighing the mistakes, in my opinion, in most instances. This bill places conditions on VA's access to its IT money to ensure it is well spent and properly managed. But at the end of the day, they must continue to move forward and make needed improvements to their IT program, and the money in this bill is critical to making sure they do that. It is for all of these reasons, regretfully, that I stand to oppose Senator Akaka's amendment. As I said, we are putting substantially more money into counseling and veterans readjustment counseling services. We understand from where the Senator speaks. We appreciate it. Clearly, he and I and all of us who look more closely at veterans programs recognize the need for counseling for many of our veterans when they return. It is a high priority of this chairman; it is a high priority of the ranking member. It is my opinion that with the additional $3.2 billion--new dollars--in the veterans budget which this represents, with the add-ons which we put in Interior and a variety of other appropriations, we have adequately funded necessarily and appropriately the services the Senator would wish to provide additional moneys for, taking them from critical areas but still remaining very important. I see the Senator is on the floor to speak to his amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate the chairman yielding. Let me say to the chairman and ranking member, as the chairman of the authorizing Committee of Veterans' Affairs, how much we appreciate the cooperative way in which we have worked together to get these numbers right. Both Senators have spoken very clearly to that effort and to the unprecedented amount of money that has flowed to veterans at this time, which we think is necessary and appropriate. I thank the Senator for that due diligence.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG

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

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

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, prior to the call of the roll, I wish to thank the chairman of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee for his work on this issue and his cooperation. Certainly, this industry, as it is important to my State, is important to his State. We work very cooperatively together. We have a lot of commonness across State lines as it relates to the dairy industry, and we share a great deal of work and research. I appreciate the urgency of the need as he has expressed it, but I felt it was extremely important that Idaho's position be heard and understood by the rest of the States because this could be done by the industry itself from another resource, not unlike how Idaho has approached it. And I hope that other States would recognize the need to resolve this issue, and I certainly agree with Senator Bennett that the authorizing committee has a responsibility here and EPA needs to get their act together on this issue. I yield the floor, noting the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, as certainly the Senate knows, we are considering the Senate appropriations bill. There is an amendment that the chairman has brought at the request of the national dairy industry that is of great concern to me. As a result of that, I stand today in opposition to legislation that would seek to divert funds from the National Dairy Promotion Program to be used as a one-time-only source to fund EPA's dairy air quality studies. While I am wholeheartedly in support of the need for research money to carry out air quality studies, dipping into a program that all producers, large and small, are required to pay into to promote their products does not seem to meet the test of where we want to now reallocate this resource. The Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 was established to strengthen the dairy industry's position in the marketplace and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and use for fluid milk and dairy products. The act does provide for research dollars to be spent but only on research projects related to the advertisement and promotion of the sale and the consumption of dairy products. So should this act leave the door open as a slush fund available any time a select group needs quick money for a proposed unrelated intent of the law? I would hope not, I would think not, and I am afraid the amendment takes us in that direction. On September 9, 2005, I and the entire Idaho congressional delegation sent a letter on this issue to Secretary Johanns. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, Idaho recently became the fourth largest dairy producer in the Nation, and coupled with that new status are our inherent growing pains. Over the past 15 years, Idaho's expansion in the dairy industry has been swift. So has the growth of the State's population. The two have come in conflict with each other over the need for Idaho's dairy industry to be good players in the environmental arena. That is a critical issue, and they have, in most instances, been successful in working out their problems. Even with the increased pressure of urban encroachment and stringent environmental regulations--and our State has not turned its back on this issue--producers in my State continue to surprise me in their work, in their innovation, and the progressive thinking as it relates to resolving the environmental problems that I suggested are inherent with large concentrated herd and dairy development that is on going. Idaho's industry realized a few years ago that it was vital they work collectively to support research to find new technologies and methods to mitigate the impact of the operations on the environment. So in 2004, Idaho dairy producers voted to assess themselves an extra half cent per hundredweight to fund environmental research. In other words, they didn't ask the country to do it, they didn't ask the Nation to do it, they did it themselves. This initiative raised about a half a million dollars per year, enabling the establishment of a broad-based research coordination team that includes Idaho and regional EPA officers. This effort serves as an example of how the industry ought to be working to solve critical research problems rather than asking us now to dip into a fund that was dedicated to advertisement, promotion, and product development. I am aware of EPA's work on the livestock ``air consent agreement'' to provide limited immunity from frivolous environmental lawsuits to producers who voluntarily allow EPA to conduct their quality research on their operations. I know that those who support this onetime dollar- dipping have good intentions, and I support all of their intentions fully. I have been working with them for a good number of months on other ways to shape Federal policy on air quality issues. However, asking Congress to allow a onetime-only access to the pool of money never intended for that purpose defies the integrity of the dairy promotion program that has worked so very effectively for now 22 years. Supporters of this proposal say it would only cost around $5 to $8 million, but if it is that small amount, then if you look at the assessment that Idaho did on themselves, you would suggest that more and more could be raised if other States were to do as Idaho has done. The program assesses all producers to promote the products that these producers all provide to the consumer. The money from the promotion program that some, not all, in the industry now seek would only benefit a specific group of producers--about 1200--for a purpose completely unrelated to the intent of the program. Why should we allow a precedent to be set that robs Peter and the rest of his family to pay Paul? Never mind that this has never been done in the program's history. Mr. President, again, I would like to express my support for the critical need for Federal investment in air quality and other environmental research programs for the dairy industry, but we should not open the gate to a flood that might never cease from a program that is intended for an entirely different purpose. With that, I will have to oppose the amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 28, 2005, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to review the grazing programs of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, including proposed changes to grazing regulations, and the status of grazing permit renewals, monitoring programs and allotment restocking plans. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Dick Bouts at 202-224-7545 or Amy Millet at 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1660

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my 10 minutes, the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, be recognized for 10 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak for three very important reasons. Of course, first is to recognize our Chief Justice who has just passed, William Rehnquist. Today the Senate paid its respects to the late Justice Rehnquist, filing through the halls of the Supreme Court where he served this Nation with distinction for more than 33 years. I could not help but remember a conversation I had with Chief Justice Rehnquist a couple of years ago. I was walking to work and happened to run into him on one of his legendary strolls around the Court. We talked a bit about what was happening in the judicial nomination process in the Senate. But the specifics of that conversation are probably less important than the style of the conversation. He was informal, approachable, genteel, but certainly direct. And regardless of his physical frailty, he had lost none of his interest or his ability to give a shrewd analysis of the events of the day. If you spent any time at all with this very important man, you would feel the force of his great personality. Much has already been written about the legal legacy of Justice Rehnquist because he was one of the most influential jurists of our time. He anchored and presided over a shift to conservative principles, underscoring in particular the importance of federalism and limitations on Government. I know some in the conservative community were disappointed that the Supreme Court, on his watch, did not reverse more prior left-leaning precedents, but his strong hand was certainly obvious in a long series of history-making decisions. William Rehnquist's impact on jurisprudence was profound and will be felt for many years to come. In his personal life, I know this engaging man had many friends, and to all of them, as well as his family, I extend my deepest condolences. The Court has lost a brilliant and fair leader. America has lost a great public servant. I consider myself fortunate to have had the chance to know and be inspired by William Rehnquist. I thank the leader for this opportunity to add one more voice to the chorus of tributes from a grateful Nation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if you serve long enough in the Congress--I had the opportunity to serve 10 years in the House, and now I am into my third term in the Senate--you have a lot of very capable and wonderful people who work for you. If you serve long enough, as I have mentioned, they not only work for you but sometimes they decide to retire. In my situation, in my office, I have two people retiring this month, and I am going to miss them greatly. I want to speak a few moments about them. First, I talk about Damon Tobias. Damon has been on my staff and handling my budget and tax issues and appropriations issues for a good number of years. I first met Damon in the House of Representatives when he was on the staff of Congressman Charlie Stenholm of Texas. Damon and I and Congressman Stenholm became involved in the balanced budget amendment movement at a time when deficits were totally out of control, and many of us worked to bring them under control. That is when Damon and I became friends. Through the 1980s we worked together on this most important issue. I left the House to come to the Senate, and Damon left the Stenholm office to go to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Later on, 2 years after I came to the Senate, Damon joined my staff in March of 1992. Damon has continued to work for me over that time, dealing with the balanced budget amendment, dealing with taxes and budget and labor issues, immigration issues. Probably Damon has spent more time, along with me, trying to solve the immigration question for American agriculture and for workers in the American agricultural economy than nearly any other issue. Of course, that paramount bill he worked so much on now has majority support in this Senate and a vast coalition of Americans behind it, known as AgJOBS, and it is a legacy of which Damon can be truly proud. He worked on appropriations and small business and Hispanic issues. He and his bride are going to return to his home State of New Mexico where Damon, I am sure, will proceed to do other things along with taking care of his aging mother. I and my staff are going to miss Damon Tobias, and I am convinced the Senate will also miss him. Mr. President, I now wish to speak about George O'Connor. Many who are in the energy field not only here in the Senate but across the United States know George O'Connor. He has served with me as counsel, on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for a good number of years. He came to this city as a lawyer in 1980, working for the Stein, Mitchell & Mezines law firm as a litigator. He specialized in administrative law litigation before the Federal Trade Commission. He became a trial attorney for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of General Counsel in the Division of Hydroelectric Licensing in 1982. He worked then as a legal advisor to FERC Commissioner Charles A. Trabandt from 1985 until 1993 and was responsible for environmental issues associated with energy projects. He returned to the FERC's Office of General Counsel until 1997. In 1998, George joined my staff as a fellow, and it was not long before I realized I needed his talent on a full-time basis in the area of energy and natural resources. In the year 2000, he became directly involved with me and has worked in that capacity for a tremendous number of years. I must say that both George and I, at the close of the session for the August recess and the passage of the National Energy Policy Act, saw that as not only a culmination of a great career here in the Senate for George O'Connor but a substantial success for myself and other members of the Energy Committee who were much involved in that. George has worked a total of 24 years in the Federal Government, and a total of 8 years in my office. I say, without question, I am going to miss George O'Connor. He is retiring to go downtown to do other things, and I am sure he will be back here when we need him helping us with his expertise and his talent. He is well known by all who associate with him as a tough but very fairminded and talented man. I must say that George O'Connor has served my State of Idaho well, has served the Pacific Northwest well, where hydro is still a dominant producer of our electricity, and has served this Nation and the Senate well. My hope for George O'Connor and Damon Tobias is that in their next life, which they are now about to assume, they will do well and be as successful in it as they have been as very talented and capable staffers here in the Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have now returned to S. 397. Under a unanimous consent agreement, there are four amendments to be debated, and three of the four will have relevant first degrees. My colleague from Kansas has asked to speak very briefly before we move to the first amendment. I yield to Senator Roberts.

Mr. CRAIG. If it is spelled out within the context of the Federal law today, it would. Under this bill, it would not unless it could be established as a violation of the current laws of our country and under the current standards. We are not creating a new category as the Levin amendment tried to do as it relates to gross negligence or reckless misconduct. But what was established was negligence, negligent entrustment is not exempt from this law.

Mr. CRAIG. In the broadest sense, he did. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains on my side?

Mr. CRAIG. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will close out our side and then the Senator from New Jersey can close. From 1992 to the year 2003--and this is only in the area of accidental deaths by firearms--dramatically down, 54 percent. From 2001 to 2003, down 13 percent. That category is not quite what the Senator talks about, but it is from 5 to 14 that makes up 1.6 percent of the total deaths by firearms, again dramatically down. Why? These are accidental. These are not on the streets of America. But out on the streets of America, those are also down because we are enforcing the law and going after the criminal. That is what this is all about. It is not going after law-abiding citizens. I think the Senator from Alabama put it very clearly. All new law is being treaded upon instead of adhering to consistent, known, well-established tort law in America. I would hope my colleagues will support my amendment, the alternative to the Lautenberg amendment. I oppose the Lautenberg amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time and would hope that Senators could conclude their remarks as we move to a vote.