Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 16, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Civilian Contractors Who Cheat On Their Taxes And What Should Be Done About It.''

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 16, 2005, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors.''

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 16, 2005, at 10 a.m., on a hearing to Examine Federal Legislative Solutions to Data Breach and Identity Theft.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to speak.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, in speaking to the Bingaman amendment, I believe renewable energy resources are an important part of our energy mix. I do not think any of us could argue they are not. I also believe all consumers should have the opportunity to purchase green power if they so choose. But I must tell you, I strongly oppose including a nationwide mandatory renewable portfolio standard in this Energy bill. Adoption of this amendment, in my opinion, would increase consumer electrical bills at a time when we are trying to do just the opposite by the very legislation that is on the floor. This would have a particularly negative consequence for those who can least afford it, such as the working poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes. For many regions of the country not blessed with renewable energy wealth, or resources, this RPS mandate would essentially result in a huge wealth transfer payment from consumers to the Federal Government or to renewable energy generators located in other areas of the country. In essence, if you say to all States, you have to meet this standard, and you by your physical presence on the globe cannot, you are not blessed with wind--and later on I will show this is dominantly for that purpose--then you will pay the price. Adoption of this amendment would conflict with the RPS programs that have already been adopted in the way that we like good energy policy to evolve; that is, within the State and within the State structure. Twenty States already have developed renewable resource policies and implemented timetables. This amendment ignores those States' programs; in other words, it says: Oh, well, if it fits there, it fits everywhere. We have simply known in our country for a long time that energy has a State, if not regional, character. While there is some national value in tying it all together, the regional character of our energy production is still very real today and my guess is will be tomorrow. The national Energy Information Administration estimates that wind energy would benefit most by the RPS mandate. In an analysis performed in 2003, EIA projected that wind energy would provide 141 billion kilowatt hours of generation by 2020. EIA's cost estimates for an RPS are heavily dependent on wind energy being built. I would point out that a wind resource map prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory graphically demonstrates that the entire southeastern region of the country has virtually no wind potential. Large areas of the upper Midwest have marginal wind potential, unless those States plan to build wind farms in the Great Lakes. EIA's wind energy projection seems wildly, even naively, optimistic to me. Why? Because a wind turbine is just as vulnerable as any other energy facility to a localized disease in our country called ``NIMBYISM,'' or ``Not In My Back Yard'' syndrome. And the fewer wind projects that are built, the more the RPS mandate ends up being just a new Federal energy tax that consumers will pay on traditional sources of energy, such as nuclear, coal, and natural gas. Dollars will just be transferred from consumers' pockets to the U.S. Department of Energy to buy renewable energy credits so utilities can meet these RPS standards. Even self-proclaimed environmentalists fall victim to NIMBYISM when the plans call for wind turbines to be built in their back yard. Apparently, wind turbines are fine in theory as long as the alleged proponents cannot see them. Let's look at what has really happened when wind developers announced plans to build wind energy facilities. Nantucket Sound: A wind energy firm announced plans to install 130 wind turbines, spaced one-third to one-half mile apart, more than 6 miles off the coast of Hyannis in Nantucket Sound. This project has been in the works for several years. The Massachusetts energy facilities siting board, in May, finally approved construction of two 18-mile transmission cables that would link the wind turbines to the shore. The wind farms would provide Cape Codders with roughly 75 percent of their energy and New England with about 1.8 percent of its total energy needs. The power would come without air emissions or using a single barrel of Middle East oil. You would think, with that kind of glowing announcement, the environmentalists would strongly support that approach. The answer is quite obvious--they do not. Many of them are up in arms organizing and moving against this very proposed idea. A coalition has been formed waging very expensive campaigns to stop the wind farm project. They are talking about it as if it were an ``Exxon Valdez'' crisis or disaster because of what it would do to the character of Nantucket Sound. ``Not in my back yard.'' Well, then, let's go to Vermont. A possible Vermont wind farm located on the mountaintops around East Haven is drawing local opposition. A ``large, diverse, well-organized citizens group'' is fighting the project and doesn't believe that wind energy has a place in Vermont. Well, wait a moment. Vermont is one of the most environmentally pure States in the Nation, by their own admission. And yet wind is supposed to be the most environmentally benign form of energy production. The ``Montpelier Times'' reported on the East Haven wind farm's future. Vermonters are saying it loudly and saying it clearly: Wind turbines have no place in Vermont. Well, let's go to Maine. How about Maine? A 29-turbine wind energy project proposed for western Maine is being strongly opposed, again, by the environmental community of Maine. They are saying it will destroy the vistas of the Appalachian Trail. The project would be built 10 miles away from it. It is going to take a few roads and power lines. You have to have a road to get the turbine in place, and you have to have a power line to get the power away from the turbine. No, no. The park manager of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail wrote to a Maine newspaper that the project ``would be an `in your face' facility for long stretches of the Appalachian Trail. . . .'' The debate goes on. But in Maine they are saying, as they said in Massachusetts and as they said in Vermont: Not in my back yard. Well, let's go to Virginia, then. How about Highland County in Virginia? They are strongly opposing a wind turbine project 3 years after it was proposed. The project proposes construction of 18 to 20 wind turbines. More than 500 people attended a May hearing on the project. About two-thirds of the Highland County residents signed a petition against the project. Again, that dreaded disease of NIMBYISM has struck in the heart of Virginia. ``Not in my back yard. No. Somewhere else. Not in my back yard.'' But what does the amendment do? It says that it better be in everybody's back yard or you are going to get taxed for it so it can be built somewhere else. In Kansas, landowners and environmental groups bitterly fought construction of a wind farm. This is in the Flint Hills region of Kansas. The area is the largest surviving vestige of the tall prairie grass. I did not know that wind turbines would hurt prairie grass, but it does. Of course, the tall-grass prairies out there, without question, are a beautiful piece of nature. I do not deny that, as no one should. Work began on the $190-million project in May of 2005, despite ongoing opposition. An environmental activist said: It's not a time for celebration, but a time for folks to redouble their efforts to protect the remaining Flint Hills. And so on goes the article from the ``Kansas City Star.'' What is the conclusion one can draw from the opposition that is now mounting against those very large turbines? The Senator from Tennessee has been so clear in explaining what these turbines are all about. For those of you who do not understand the visualness of the large German turbine, step outside, walk out to First Street, and look back at the Capitol building. Look at the top of the Statue of Freedom, and then visually come all the way down to ground level. That is about tip to tip on the large turbines. That is just about how big they are, about 300 feet tip to tip. So they have high visibility because you have to get them up above the ground, on a large tower, and fit them into the airstream. That is why people are reacting today. Yet we know that this RPS standard is dominantly a wind standard. That is how you get there-- because we are not going to build any more large power dams in Idaho. Some would even deny that hydro is a renewable resource. We know we are not going to do much more geothermal because not all States are blessed with the dynamics of geothermal energy. My State has a little of that. Dominantly, what we are talking about is wind, and some photovoltaic, although wind is by far more advanced in its engineering and its development. As these stories and experiences make clear, wind energy facilities are no more immune to NIMBYISM and the syndrome and that lethal virus than any other item when it comes to disturbing the character or the uniqueness of one's personal surroundings. It is how we believe. It is the character of our own local community. So when many over the years have said, ``Oh, but this is the most benign of all energy production, this fits our environmental portfolio,'' we are finding it is quite the opposite. Really, nothing fits some people's portfolio when it comes to energy production. If wind farms are OK as long as they are built somewhere else, then where are the right places? Where are all these wind turbines going to go to be built that EIA assumes are going to be built under an RPS mandate? Will wind turbines be built in remote areas of the country without enough transmission capacity to move the power to where the consumer is? More than likely. Texas has a State RPS program, and a lot of wind capacity has been built in that State. Unfortunately, about 1,000 megawatts of wind capacity was built in west Texas on the wrong side of a transmission constraint. Got the turbines, can produce the power, can't transmit it to where the people are. As a result, a lot of that wind power has been stranded. The regional coordinator responsible for maintaining reliability of the Texas transmission grid has stated that ``the sparse transmission system in the area has required almost daily limits on the output of this [wind] resource to keep within transmission operating limits.'' Maybe we can build all of the wind power we need in North Dakota. It has been called the Saudi Arabia of wind potential. I know the Senators of that State are strong supporters of this RPS mandate. Unfortunately, according to the North American Electric Reliability Council, the reliability region in which North Dakota is located is monitoring 31 transmission constraints already within the grid of that region. The NERC 2005 Summer Assessment Report states that ``these constraints can limit [power] imports and exports,'' and the story goes on. Now you can see why I suggest--and I hope many support the idea--that States do it on their own as it fits their needs. But when we create a national mandate on a renewable portfolio, and it is restrictive to the character of the region or the capacity of the region, we are taxing one area against another. That simply is not good public policy. I don't think it ever takes us where we want to go. What we crafted in our Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is now on the Senate floor as a very important piece of legislation took into consideration all of what we thought was important and right. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. I hope the amendment that I have spoken to--and that others are speaking to--will be rejected by the Senate. It simply does not fit. It will not bring us where all of us want to go, and that is to greater sources, cleaner sources, reliable sources, a mix of sources, in our energy production for this country. I hope my colleagues will reject the amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand--because of certain committee meetings and time considerations--that we have been asked to extend the time in which there will be a vote. So I ask unanimous consent that the time of 2:15 be extended until 2:30 on a vote on the two amendments that are on the floor and that time be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 791

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I encourage all of our colleagues who wish to engage in the debate on this major national energy policy from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to come to the Senate. We have the ethanol section that came out of committee with some identification now on the floor for debate and ultimately a vote that allows anyone who chooses to come to debate this or the whole legislation. I will become involved with my colleagues over the course of the afternoon and tomorrow in debating not only the total substance of the bill, which is tremendously positive and puts this Nation on a path forward toward an abundance of energy sources, but it also recognizes all of the technologies are involved. If I were to give this bill a title that the American public ought to refer to it as, I would call it ``America's Clean Energy Act'' because I think all we are about now and into the future as we adjust technologies, as we improve old forms of energy, as we bring old forms into the new economy, all of them by definition, we are going to ask on behalf of the American people for the cleaner source, and in many instances, very clean sources. I yield the floor for any who wish to debate the issue.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Alexander, for the tremendous level of involvement and importance he placed on this issue of energy, as a full participant in the committee, there to talk about, look at, research, and find answers for many of the proposals that are embodied in this critical piece of legislation. I thank him as a major contributor to this issue. He has well laid out this afternoon the importance of this legislation and getting this country back into the business of producing energy but also under that critical new caveat of clean energy that we see and believe to be so important to all of us. I see the junior Senator from Florida on the floor, who, like the Senator from Tennessee, has been a major participant as a new member of our Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Already his important fingerprints are on this major piece of energy legislation. I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. CRAIG. I ask my colleagues to consider that the ethanol title is now before us. I believe there are several amendments out there, and we would like to move this through in the next day or so. We would hope that some of our colleagues who have those amendments would come to the floor this late afternoon and evening and offer those amendments. So for those listening and for those staffs who are aware, we would ask them to bring those amendments forward so that we could consider them as we move, we hope, in a timely fashion through this legislation. I thank my colleague from South Dakota.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me speak to the underlying bill and the provision in the amendment that is before us now before yielding the floor. The senior Senator from Florida is here to discuss the issue of offshore drilling and a very important part of our overall energy considerations. First and foremost, the chairman has called our colleagues forward to the floor on ethanol amendments. That is the provision that is on the floor now. I thank the junior Senator from South Dakota for his thoughts and laying out a comprehensive explanation as to the importance of renewable fuels to our country as we strive toward a greater sense of self-reliance. Self-reliance is security. Self- reliance is national security. The ability to determine for ourselves our own energy destiny is critically important, whether it is today or tomorrow or for our children's future. To know that there is going to be an abundance of energy of all types, both for transportation purposes, electrical generating purposes--all of that is critical. Finally, that is why we are here on the floor of the Senate with this critical legislation. Whatever we call this legislation--a few moments ago I called it America's Clean Energy Act--the reality is that it has taken us decades to begin to understand that the supply we had is not what we now have; that as our country grew and we failed to meet those growth levels with additional energy sources, we became increasingly reliant on other nations for our energy, and energy prices began to go up. We as a country, in the last decade, have had to make some critical choices about our future and our job markets based on a supply of energy. Could we afford to produce it in this country, creating jobs here, or were those who invested in those kinds of jobs going to look somewhere else in the world to create that new production plant for the purposes of supplying our consumer needs? All of those became a necessary and important part of a decisionmaking process in America's business because America's Government was increasingly standing in the way of our ability to produce. And Congress--and I was a part of it--for the last decade consistently looked at these issues but failed to come to the necessary agreements to produce a comprehensive policy that put us back into the business of exploring for hydrocarbons on public lands, enhanced our ability to produce renewable sources, caused us to look at nuclear as an important part of our overall electrical blend, and allowed those plants to be built, and so on and so forth. Finally, as a result of extremely high gas prices, as a result of blackouts, as a result of catastrophic meltdowns in energy markets, and a lot of finger-pointing--and some of it justified--we find ourselves on the floor of the Senate today debating what most can call a strongly provided-for bipartisan national energy policy. It begins this country's effort to march again toward self-reliance. It causes us to look at a variety of options, of alternatives, to recognize that it isn't just one source of energy that will fuel the future, it is multiple sources; that it is a balanced portfolio that is going to be critically necessary to assure, whether it is transportation needs and it is hydrocarbons or it is hydrogen or a combination of all of those, and electrical power certainly for our base loads--and those are electrical loads that don't just for a moment light your house but for a long period fuel your production facilities and plants--that we are going to have to have those kinds of generating capacities that ultimately produce that type of energy. Natural gas is a critical hydrocarbon fuel, a cleaner hydrocarbon fuel than any available today. It was once thought to be the ideal fuel for drying and space heat, but under the Clean Air Act we didn't have clean coal technologies, and we wouldn't build nuclear. So we began to say: Gee, we can run this through turbines and provide electrical power. And we began to do so, at a time when we weren't bringing new gas to the market. Over the decade of the 1990s, as electrical companies were trying to meet the demand of their consumer ratepaying base, they built gas turbine electrical generators. Gas went from $2 a gallon until early this spring to over $7 a gallon--excuse me, $7 per thousand cubic feet. We are not talking gas at the pump; we are talking gas in the pipe, and we are talking thousands of cubic feet. Now it is, as of today, $6.66. And those marvelous gas turbines we built have been turned off because their cost of operation, feeding power into the national power grid, is simply too expensive. We should not have gone there in the first place, but the absence of good, well-thought-out national energy policy for this country caused, in large part, that to happen. Now we are scrambling as a country to find new gas sources. We have just recognized and facilitated the building of a national gas pipeline out of Alaska to feed the lower 48. We are trying to look at how we bring gas ashore in the form of liquefied types, and all of that in blend, but recognizing that we desperately need it. We now recognize it and are moving in that direction. Coal powers over 50 percent of our generation today. And we have, as many have stated, hundreds of years of supply. But it is not as clean as we would like it. This particular piece of legislation incentivizes cleaner coal technology and the gasification of coal in the generation of power. All of it is moving in the right direction. You just heard a robust discussion about renewables. It is not just ethanol that renews. I believe hydropower renews--that little flow of water through the pin stock that turns the turbine, that turns the lights on in the Pacific Northwest. Nearly 75 percent of all of the lights in the Pacific Northwest are generated by hydropower. Yet over the last good number of years, we have been very frustrated because almost all of these dams on rivers that produce hydropower are federally licensed. In 1986, we created legislation that began to bog down the licensing process, or make it so complicated that in a few instances, as the licenses were attempted to be renewed, they simply were not. We have had a few dams torn down, which were no longer viable under certain scenarios. We have said we are going to change that and create a better process, and we are. It is in this legislation and it is important because, over the course of the next good number of years in the States of California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, over 92 hydro facilities need to be relicensed. We want them to be efficient and environmentally sound, but they are an important part of the overall electrical base load of this country. Well, there are a good many issues that I will talk about over the course of the next several days as we debate this critical piece of legislation. I am going to spend some time with alternative sources and a good deal of time with nuclear. Why? Because the world has awakened to the fact. As the Senator from Tennessee so clearly said, in this country nearly 70 percent of our electrical base that is carbon free, nonemitting, is generated by nuclear power. It is the only true clean source today of energy, outside of hydro, and we all recognize we are probably not going to be damming up a lot more rivers in our country to produce hydropower to meet that base load. Every major utility in this country that has a responsibility to the consuming public to turn on the lights in the home and fuel the production plants of the facilities of our country is looking forward for 10 years now and saying: How do we build a base for 10 years out? It takes that long in the construction process. All of them recognize there is largely only one source with which you do that, and that is nuclear. We recognize it in this bill. I do believe our Nation and the world are in what some could call, and what I hope is a nuclear renaissance, a recognition of this very clean and very safe source of energy. This legislation recognizes it and begins to facilitate it in ways that we have not done in the past. There seems to be a growing general acceptance to the recognition of the importance of nuclear in our national energy base and the role it plays. A good deal more can be said about a very bipartisan piece of legislation. I thank Senator Pete Domenici and Senator Bingaman. Both have worked as chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, on which I am a senior member, to craft and create balance in this legislation. There are going to be a good many amendments. Some will fail, some will not. But they are a general expression of a concern, I do believe, and a recognition of the very important nature of this piece of legislation that can become public policy and put this country back into the business of producing energy. We are no longer able to afford the selectivity that some have argued for some time--a little bit of this but none of that; some of this but never go there--in the general debate about energy. Largely, the American consuming public today is saying: Congress, get your act together. Five years of debate is long enough. Get this country back into the business of producing energy--all forms, all types, an abundant market basketful of it. Keep it clean, explore new technologies, provide for conservation. But in the end, Congress, get it together and get it to the President's desk. I believe this bill embodies that philosophy. It was clearly recognized in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which I serve. I hope that over the course of the next several weeks, as we work ourselves through the amendment process, we will have a bill, that we can work out our differences with the House in conference, and see it on the President's desk and be able to very proudly and responsibly say to the American consumer: We have heard you. We recognize the needs of this country, and we are creating public policy to put this country back into the business of self-reliance for national security purposes, for future economic purposes, but most importantly, a clear recognition that we must, as a country, stand on our own two feet in the business of producing energy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation that I have introduced today that will improve insurance and housing benefits available for our Nation's servicemembers and veterans. The ``Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2005'' would increase the maximum amount of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, and Veterans' Group Life Insurance, VGLI, coverage from $250,000 to $400,000; would require the Secretary of Defense to notify spouses of insured servicemembers when those servicemembers elect an SGLI beneficiary other than their spouse or when they elect to reduce SGLI coverage amounts; would provide a two-year, post-discharge window within which totally disabled veterans might elect to convert their insurance coverage from SGLI to VGLI; and would provide flexibility to VA's hybrid adjustable rate mortgage program so that servicemembers and veterans might use their VA home loan benefits in conjunction with this popular type of mortgage financing. There already has been a great deal of discussion in the 109th Congress about the adequacy of benefits for the survivors of those who have lost their lives in service. There has also been a great deal of action. Section 1012 of Public Law 109-13, the ``Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005,'' made improvements to the SGLI program. However, section 1012 also specified that the SGLI improvements made in the act be terminated effective September 30, 2005, and that the law as it existed prior to the enactment of Public Law 109-13 be revived on that date. As I understand it, the purpose of the termination language was to give the committee of jurisdiction--in this case, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which I chair in the Senate--the opportunity to proceed with proposals that would put a more permanent stamp on changes to the SGLI program. Towards that end, and consistent with the changes enacted in Public Law 109-13, section 2(a) of my legislation would increase the maximum amount of SGLI and VGLI coverage from $250,000 to $400,000 effective October 1, 2005. SGLI coverage meets the insurance needs of servicemembers and Reserve members; VGLI coverage is available to meet the insurance needs of veterans as they transition out of military or naval service. The higher amount of coverage in my bill, in combination with other Federal assistance provided by VA, the Department of Defense, and the Social Security Administration, would provide for a more appropriate level of financial assistance for survivors of insured servicemembers and veterans. For example, the surviving spouse of an Army Sergeant killed in action who has two dependent children would have eligibility for up to $625,186 in lump-sum benefit assistance from the Federal government. In addition, section 2(a) of the legislation I have introduced today would require the Secretary of Defense to notify, in writing, the spouses of servicemembers who elect either to name beneficiaries other than their spouses, or who elect to reduce their SGLI coverage. Under existing law, servicemembers have the right to name the insurance beneficiary of their choice. There are, however, some incidences of spouses of married servicemembers being left without adequate insurance for themselves or their children because they were unaware of the insurance decisions the servicemembers had made. I believe the spousal notification requirement in my bill strikes an appropriate balance between the long-standing rights of servicemembers to make their own, unfettered insurance choices, and the rights of spouses to be informed of matters that may impact on their future financial stability. Turning to the insurance needs of severely disabled servicemembers, section 2(b) of this bill would extend for 1 year the period within which totally disabled veterans discharged from service might apply to convert their SGLI coverage to VGLI coverage. Under current law, servicemembers discharged from service have a 120-day grace period within which they are provided premium-free coverage under SGLI and may convert to VGLI coverage without needing to meet underwriting requirements. Servicemembers separated from service who are totally disabled may apply for an extension of the free SGLI coverage and VGLI conversion benefit that lasts up to one year after military discharge. There are two benefits of applying for the 1 year extension. The first is that SGLI coverage during the 1 year period is provided at no cost to the servicemember. The second is that the application for extension also serves as an application for automatic conversion from SGLI to VGLI. The opportunity to convert life insurance coverage to VGLI is essential for totally disabled veterans, many of whom have no hope of obtaining commercial insurance coverage. VA's Insurance Service conducts targeted outreach to severely disabled veterans in an attempt to encourage them to apply for the 1 year extension of SGLI and conversion to VGLI benefit. However, information obtained from this outreach effort reveals that many severely disabled veterans are not taking advantage of the extension because they are precluded from post-separation financial planning by the effects of their disabilities and their need to focus on rehabilitation. Preliminary data obtained from VA suggest only 45 percent of totally disabled servicemembers apply for the extension despite VA's outreach effort. My legislation will provide 1 additional year within which severely disabled veterans may apply. The extra year will give VA more time--a total of 2 years after their discharge from the military--to reach veterans when they are perhaps more able to focus on their financial planning needs. Finally, section 3 of the legislation I have introduced today would provide VA with greater flexibility to set appropriate interest rate cap protections on hybrid ARM loans it guarantees. Under existing law, VA has the authority to guaranty hybrid ARM loans through fiscal year 2008. Hybrid ARM loans are a new, and popular, financing option for borrowers that features a fixed period of interest on a loan for between 3 and 10 years followed by a period of annual adjustments thereafter. For VA hybrid ARM loans with an initial fixed rate of 5 or more years, VA may prescribe the maximum increase of the initial adjustment and the maximum adjustment permitted over the life of the loan. These interest rate ``caps'' are common in the mortgage financing industry, and serve to protect borrowers against wild upward swings in interest rates that might make a borrower more likely to default. However, unlike the flexibility given to VA to set caps for the initial adjustment and for the aggregate adjustment for the life of a loan, the law specifically limits annual interest rate adjustments after the initial adjustment to one percentage point. I am informed by industry and VA experts that without providing VA with greater flexibility to set an appropriate interest rate cap for annual adjustments, lenders will either be reluctant to make VA hybrid ARM loans available to veterans, or will require that veterans pay higher interest rates than otherwise would be required. My legislation would provide VA with the flexibility it needs to fix this problem. Mr. President, the provisions of this legislation are important for veterans and their loved ones. We must give greater peace of mind to the families of those serving in the military, especially during a wartime period, that their Government has made available to them life insurance coverage to meet their basic financial needs in the event of death. We must give every opportunity for severely wounded servicemembers, many with war wounds, to remain insured under a government life insurance policy if their injuries might preclude them from being covered at reasonable cost under a private policy. And we must ensure that we remain flexible with mortgage industry standards so that veterans have the greatest array of financing options available to them when seeking to partake in the American dream of home ownership. My bill will accomplish all of these things and I ask my colleagues for their support of it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing today to provide a cost-of-living, COLA, adjustment for certain veterans benefits programs. This COLA adjustment would affect payments made to nearly 3 million Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, beneficiaries, and would be reflected in beneficiary checks that are received in January 2006, and thereafter. An annual cost-of-living adjustment in veterans benefits is an important tool which protects veterans' cash-transfer benefits against the corrosive effects of inflation. The principal programs affected by the adjustment would be compensation paid to disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation--DIC--payments made to the surviving spouses, minor children and other dependants of persons who died in service, or who died after service as a result of service- connected injuries or diseases. The President's budget anticipates inflation to be at a 2.3 percent level at the close of this year as measured by the consumer price index--CPI--published by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. If inflation is held to the 2.3-percent level, that will be the level of COLA adjustment under this legislation since it ties the increase directly to the CPI increase as measured by the Department of Labor. Whatever the CPI increase eventually turns out to be, however, veterans' and survivors' benefits payments must be protected by being increased by a like amount. The Senate has already concurred with that judgment with passage of a budget resolution which assumes an increase equal to the CPI and which sets aside the funds necessary to finance the COLA increase envisioned by this legislation. I ask my colleagues to support this vital legislation. I request unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation that I have introduced today that will improve insurance and housing benefits available for our Nation's servicemembers and veterans. The ``Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2005'' would increase the maximum amount of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, and Veterans' Group Life Insurance, VGLI, coverage from $250,000 to $400,000; would require the Secretary of Defense to notify spouses of insured servicemembers when those servicemembers elect an SGLI beneficiary other than their spouse or when they elect to reduce SGLI coverage amounts; would provide a two-year, post-discharge window within which totally disabled veterans might elect to convert their insurance coverage from SGLI to VGLI; and would provide flexibility to VA's hybrid adjustable rate mortgage program so that servicemembers and veterans might use their VA home loan benefits in conjunction with this popular type of mortgage financing. There already has been a great deal of discussion in the 109th Congress about the adequacy of benefits for the survivors of those who have lost their lives in service. There has also been a great deal of action. Section 1012 of Public Law 109-13, the ``Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005,'' made improvements to the SGLI program. However, section 1012 also specified that the SGLI improvements made in the act be terminated effective September 30, 2005, and that the law as it existed prior to the enactment of Public Law 109-13 be revived on that date. As I understand it, the purpose of the termination language was to give the committee of jurisdiction--in this case, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which I chair in the Senate--the opportunity to proceed with proposals that would put a more permanent stamp on changes to the SGLI program. Towards that end, and consistent with the changes enacted in Public Law 109-13, section 2(a) of my legislation would increase the maximum amount of SGLI and VGLI coverage from $250,000 to $400,000 effective October 1, 2005. SGLI coverage meets the insurance needs of servicemembers and Reserve members; VGLI coverage is available to meet the insurance needs of veterans as they transition out of military or naval service. The higher amount of coverage in my bill, in combination with other Federal assistance provided by VA, the Department of Defense, and the Social Security Administration, would provide for a more appropriate level of financial assistance for survivors of insured servicemembers and veterans. For example, the surviving spouse of an Army Sergeant killed in action who has two dependent children would have eligibility for up to $625,186 in lump-sum benefit assistance from the Federal government. In addition, section 2(a) of the legislation I have introduced today would require the Secretary of Defense to notify, in writing, the spouses of servicemembers who elect either to name beneficiaries other than their spouses, or who elect to reduce their SGLI coverage. Under existing law, servicemembers have the right to name the insurance beneficiary of their choice. There are, however, some incidences of spouses of married servicemembers being left without adequate insurance for themselves or their children because they were unaware of the insurance decisions the servicemembers had made. I believe the spousal notification requirement in my bill strikes an appropriate balance between the long-standing rights of servicemembers to make their own, unfettered insurance choices, and the rights of spouses to be informed of matters that may impact on their future financial stability. Turning to the insurance needs of severely disabled servicemembers, section 2(b) of this bill would extend for 1 year the period within which totally disabled veterans discharged from service might apply to convert their SGLI coverage to VGLI coverage. Under current law, servicemembers discharged from service have a 120-day grace period within which they are provided premium-free coverage under SGLI and may convert to VGLI coverage without needing to meet underwriting requirements. Servicemembers separated from service who are totally disabled may apply for an extension of the free SGLI coverage and VGLI conversion benefit that lasts up to one year after military discharge. There are two benefits of applying for the 1 year extension. The first is that SGLI coverage during the 1 year period is provided at no cost to the servicemember. The second is that the application for extension also serves as an application for automatic conversion from SGLI to VGLI. The opportunity to convert life insurance coverage to VGLI is essential for totally disabled veterans, many of whom have no hope of obtaining commercial insurance coverage. VA's Insurance Service conducts targeted outreach to severely disabled veterans in an attempt to encourage them to apply for the 1 year extension of SGLI and conversion to VGLI benefit. However, information obtained from this outreach effort reveals that many severely disabled veterans are not taking advantage of the extension because they are precluded from post-separation financial planning by the effects of their disabilities and their need to focus on rehabilitation. Preliminary data obtained from VA suggest only 45 percent of totally disabled servicemembers apply for the extension despite VA's outreach effort. My legislation will provide 1 additional year within which severely disabled veterans may apply. The extra year will give VA more time--a total of 2 years after their discharge from the military--to reach veterans when they are perhaps more able to focus on their financial planning needs. Finally, section 3 of the legislation I have introduced today would provide VA with greater flexibility to set appropriate interest rate cap protections on hybrid ARM loans it guarantees. Under existing law, VA has the authority to guaranty hybrid ARM loans through fiscal year 2008. Hybrid ARM loans are a new, and popular, financing option for borrowers that features a fixed period of interest on a loan for between 3 and 10 years followed by a period of annual adjustments thereafter. For VA hybrid ARM loans with an initial fixed rate of 5 or more years, VA may prescribe the maximum increase of the initial adjustment and the maximum adjustment permitted over the life of the loan. These interest rate ``caps'' are common in the mortgage financing industry, and serve to protect borrowers against wild upward swings in interest rates that might make a borrower more likely to default. However, unlike the flexibility given to VA to set caps for the initial adjustment and for the aggregate adjustment for the life of a loan, the law specifically limits annual interest rate adjustments after the initial adjustment to one percentage point. I am informed by industry and VA experts that without providing VA with greater flexibility to set an appropriate interest rate cap for annual adjustments, lenders will either be reluctant to make VA hybrid ARM loans available to veterans, or will require that veterans pay higher interest rates than otherwise would be required. My legislation would provide VA with the flexibility it needs to fix this problem. Mr. President, the provisions of this legislation are important for veterans and their loved ones. We must give greater peace of mind to the families of those serving in the military, especially during a wartime period, that their Government has made available to them life insurance coverage to meet their basic financial needs in the event of death. We must give every opportunity for severely wounded servicemembers, many with war wounds, to remain insured under a government life insurance policy if their injuries might preclude them from being covered at reasonable cost under a private policy. And we must ensure that we remain flexible with mortgage industry standards so that veterans have the greatest array of financing options available to them when seeking to partake in the American dream of home ownership. My bill will accomplish all of these things and I ask my colleagues for their support of it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dominic Saavedra, an intern on the staff of Senator Bingaman, be granted the privileges of the floor during the debate on H.R. 6 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing today to provide a cost-of-living, COLA, adjustment for certain veterans benefits programs. This COLA adjustment would affect payments made to nearly 3 million Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, beneficiaries, and would be reflected in beneficiary checks that are received in January 2006, and thereafter. An annual cost-of-living adjustment in veterans benefits is an important tool which protects veterans' cash-transfer benefits against the corrosive effects of inflation. The principal programs affected by the adjustment would be compensation paid to disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation--DIC--payments made to the surviving spouses, minor children and other dependants of persons who died in service, or who died after service as a result of service- connected injuries or diseases. The President's budget anticipates inflation to be at a 2.3 percent level at the close of this year as measured by the consumer price index--CPI--published by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. If inflation is held to the 2.3-percent level, that will be the level of COLA adjustment under this legislation since it ties the increase directly to the CPI increase as measured by the Department of Labor. Whatever the CPI increase eventually turns out to be, however, veterans' and survivors' benefits payments must be protected by being increased by a like amount. The Senate has already concurred with that judgment with passage of a budget resolution which assumes an increase equal to the CPI and which sets aside the funds necessary to finance the COLA increase envisioned by this legislation. I ask my colleagues to support this vital legislation. I request unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to clarify the record concerning my support for the resolution before us today. I chose to cosponsor this resolution because of my abhorrence for the crime of lynching. I have been told that the passage of this resolution will enable people whose families were affected by this terrible crime to resolve their frustration that Government authorities did not do more to stop it. If this resolution helps people deal with the past so that they can move on to the future, it is a worthwhile statement to make. Having said that, I am aware of concerns that have been raised about possible ``next steps'' based on the Senate's action on S. Res. 39. Let me just say that this resolution should not be interpreted--at least so far as this Senator is concerned--as any kind of an endorsement for some claim of compensation based on any action or inaction of the Federal Government. In fact, what brings me to the floor is a concern that the actions of a particular Senator long ago may be subjected to unfair, revisionist criticism from our perspective today. The Senator in question is my predecessor, known as ``the Lion of Idaho,'' William Borah. Senator Borah was one of the leaders of the Senate in blocking consideration of the anti-lynching legislation. I think it is important for the record to show that whatever motives others may have had at the time for blocking this legislation, William Borah offered convincing justifications for his position rooted in serious constitutional and policy concerns. This is the conclusion I have drawn from considerable historical research of the debates of the time, which has been condensed into a report by a talented law student, David Palmer, who served as my law clerk earlier this year. I am going to ask that this report be printed in the Record so that all my colleagues can review it. It is an absorbing read, and I think it supports the conclusion that Senator Borah made a principled stand at the time. I ask unanimous consent that the report of David Palmer concerning William Borah's arguments against Senate action be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in recent weeks Lien Chan of Taiwan undertook the task of meeting with key leaders in the People's Republic of China. This was no small task as the gulf between the two sides is much wider than the Strait of Formosa. The substantive accomplishments of Chairman Lien's recent mission to mainland China surely put to rest any accusations that the event was little more than a symbolic gesture. In fact, the practical results should have a very positive impact on cross-strait trade, tourism, and culture if momentum can be maintained. First and foremost, an essential mechanism of dialogue has been established, overcoming obstacles of politics and history. The precedent has been set. Further talks between mainland China and Taiwan should follow as a matter of course, to address a range of issues of mutual concern, provided there is enough goodwill on both sides. However, I think it is important to note that these meetings did not include elected officials of the Government of Taiwan. Although these initial talks were an important step, it is essential that future talks between Taiwan and China include the rightly elected leaders of Taiwan for there to be any real substance and hope for change. Second, it seems that certain basic principles have been addressed that should help Taipei and Beijing re-open negotiations on an equal footing, even though they still disagree on the meaning of ``one China'' and what Taiwan's international status is. The basic concept of ending hostility and promoting cooperation has been embraced. Both sides believe it is a mistake to let small details create a deadlock forever, and that is a key principle for progress. Third, even people who insist that all talk is meaningless unless it leads to policy changes should be able to admit that eliminating and/or reducing trade barriers on farm products, like fruit, is a concrete achievement. Both sides gain from such actions, and it sets a good example for further progress later on down the road. Fourth, it is to be commended by any free society when a tightly controlled country like mainland China agrees to negotiate to allow its people to tour a democracy like Taiwan. Who knows what the long-term implications may be, when those who know few liberties are one day allowed to visit and see for themselves what real freedom feels and looks like. Finally, even the most humorless critics surely must admit that ``panda bear diplomacy'' still trumps political stalemate and hostility. Critics can call it symbolism, but even symbolism has definite practical value when it lifts spirits and relaxes tensions. History will record that this mission was blessed with genuine substance as well as great potential in building bridges where none existed before.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce legislation that will expand the services available to our Nation's veterans and their dependents, and improve the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide health care services to this same group of deserving Americans. I take a few moments now to explain the provisions of this legislation. First, the bill would, in section 2, exempt veterans enrolled for VA care from all copayments for hospice care services provided by VA. Over the past several years, VA has greatly expanded its efforts to provide compassionate end-of-life care for our Nation's heroes. Last year, Congress made efforts to ensure that the surviving spouses and children would not receive bills for such services following the deaths of such veterans who were in the hospice program. Unfortunately, last year's legislation did not go far enough, and today some veterans' families are still paying for this care. This provision would end that practice in all hospice care settings. Section 3 of the bill would exempt former Prisoners of War from copayments that are applicable to care in a VA extended care facility. Congress has already exempted this deserving group of veterans from other VA medical copayments, and this provision would complete the range of services available to these veterans free of charge. In addition, this section bill would remove the requirement that VA maintain the exact number of nursing home care beds in VA facilities as it had during fiscal year 1998. Now before some suggest that I am advocating the reduction in services available to veterans, I'd like to explain how the current requirement came about and why I believe it should be reconsidered. The requirement that VA maintain a specified level of nursing home beds was inserted into the law in 1999 when Congress enacted legislation to expand options for non-institutional, long-term care services available to veterans. At that time, some felt that by growing the non-institutional care program, VA would seek simply to shut all of its institutional care capacity. So in a compromise, Congress decided that fiscal year 1998 would be the year against which changes in the institutional care program would be measured. And then it required that VA maintain all of the beds it had in 1998. Since 1998, VA has increased the number of veterans it treats by nearly 2 million. Yet, year after year, VA reports to Congress that it does not need to maintain the number of nursing home beds required by law. Does that mean VA is closing beds unnecessarily? No. It means VA has followed the progress of medicine and is offering tens-of-thousands of veterans non-institutional care services while keeping them at home rather than in VA nursing home beds. I do not believe that Congress should continue to mandate the maintenance of an arbitrarily-determined number of beds in a system that is trying to effectively use every dollar it can to provide real and needed services to our veterans. This provision reflects that belief. The fourth section of the legislation, if enacted, would ensure that veterans who seek emergency medical services at the nearby community medical facilities are treated no differently financially than if the care had been provided at a VA medical facility. This is an important issue in the provision of quality health care for our veterans. VA has some evidence that veterans who need emergency services are bypassing local medical facilities, and are attempting to ``make it'' to a VA facility even in the face of an emergency, because of concerns that VA's reimbursement policies for non-VA provided emergency care will result in the veteran paying more out-of-pocket costs. Clearly, that is not the kind of behavior Congress wants to encourage in our veterans. Nor is it good medicine. This provision would clarify once and for all that veterans will be treated equally regardless of where emergency care treatment is sought. Section 5 of the bill would authorize VA to provide or pay for up to the first fourteen days of care for a newborn child of an enrolled female veteran who delivers her baby under VA provided, or VA financed, care. As most of my colleagues know, VA provides what it calls a ``comprehensive package of health benefits for eligible veterans.'' Unfortunately, for the increasing number of female veterans enrolling for VA care, the word ``comprehensive'' does not include coverage for a newborn's first few days of needed care. This type of arrangement is common in the private sector. In my judgment, this is an issue we must address to assure our female service members that, as more and more of them join the service and change the face of the American military, we will make certain that the face of VA changes right along with it. Section 6 would allow private health care providers to recoup costs for care provided to children afflicted with spina bifida of Vietnam veterans--children who are, by law, entitled to VA-provided care--when the costs are not fully covered by VA reimbursements. This so-called ``balance billing'' authority would prohibit charging individual patients or veterans themselves. Only a beneficiary with private insurance could have his or her insurance cover charges not covered by VA. This provision is important because it will provide a financial incentive to many providers who, unfortunately in some cases today, are not willing to provide the very specialized services needed by these children because some costs are not reimbursed by VA at a sufficient rate. Section 7 of this bill would increase the authorized level of funding for the Homeless Grant and Per Diem Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I know all of my colleagues would agree that any man or woman who served this country in uniform should not be among the unfortunate Americans who find themselves on the street without shelter. VA has made tremendous strides in this area by providing grant programs, health care services, mental health treatment, and other assistance to those veterans who do find themselves on the street. This provision would ensure that good programs remain on track for the foreseeable future. The eighth section of this bill would authorize VA medical centers to employ Marriage and Family Therapists. I realize that to some of my colleagues this may sound as though VA is beginning to become a family health care system and not a veterans' health care system. I want to assure any who harbor such concerns that this is not the intention or the purpose of this proposed authority. Rather, this proposal seeks to recognize that for some veterans, the trauma and experiences of war may lead to troubles at home. Often in these situations, treatment as a family is more effective for the betterment of the veteran. Of course, preservation of the family is an extremely important byproduct of this treatment approach as well. I do not believe it is incompatible with the mission of treating our veterans to focus on their family well- being when it is appropriate. The military is offering many of these services already to those who are returning from overseas. These programs are receiving good reviews from those in the mental health and counseling professions. It seems only logical that we extend successful ideas from the military experience to our veterans. Section 9 would provide pay equity for the national Director of VA's Nursing Service. Currently, this position is paid at a rate that is less than all of the other service chiefs at VA's Central Office. I believe correcting this inequity is not only a matter of fairness, but a long overdue recognition that VA's nursing service is just as important to the provision of health services for our veterans as the pharmacy service, the dental service, and other such services within VA. Section 10 of this bill would allow VA to conduct cost-comparison studies within its health care system. Mr. President, such studies are invaluable tools for government to measure whether its current workforce has identified the most efficient and effective means of delivering services to our veterans, and value to the taxpayers. In my opinion, any organization that fails to measure its performance against others in the same field will quickly cease to be an effective organization. VA is--and it must continue to be--an effective and efficient health care provider. This small change in the law will provide one additional tool to ensure that is the case far into the future. Section 11 of my legislation would focus on an area of great importance to many members of the Senate: The treatment of mental health issues for those returning from service in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I know many of us have read reports that estimate that as many as 20 percent of those serving overseas will need some mental health care services to cope with the stress of serving in a war zone. First, I want to say to my colleagues that the Department of Veterans Affairs already has in place numerous programs and services to respond to the needs of those veterans seeking care for mental health issues. Still, as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I believe it is important that we assure our brave servicemen and women, and the American people, that we are not satisfied with merely maintaining VA's ability to provide mental health services. Rather, we must assure that VA continues to improve and expand the treatment options available. This section of the bill would authorize $95 million in both fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to improve and expand the mental health services available to our Nation's veterans. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be required to devote specific resources to certain important areas of treatment including, but not limited to $5 million to expand the number of clinical teams devoted to the treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; $50 million to expand the services available to diagnose and treat veterans with substance abuse problems; $10 million to expand tele-health capabilities in areas of the country where access to basic mental health services is nearly impossible; $1 million to improve educational programs available for primary care providers to learn more about diagnosing and treating veterans with mental illness; $20 million to expand the number of community-based outpatient clinics with mental health services; and $5 million to expand VA's Mental Health Intensive Case Management Teams. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that I am taking this approach because I am concerned about the availability of these services as much as anyone in the Senate. But, I am also concerned about recent moves to ``micro-manage'' the VA health care system by requiring, for example, that certain percentages of VA's budget be spent on one service or another, or that every VA facility have some certain clinical service available. These approaches, while well- intentioned, run the risk of diverting important resources away from services that are extremely important to our veterans. My approach is to put Congress on record as expecting improvements and expansion in certain important programs, attaching a reasonable amount of money to those efforts, and then monitoring the progress closely from the Veterans' Committee. Section 12 addresses a point of legal contention that has restricted the sharing of medical information between the Department of Defense and VA. As a result, record transfers for patients who would be VA patients are not arriving in VA hands as quickly and as seamlessly as they should. This provision would make clear that DoD and VA may exchange health records information for the purpose of providing health care to beneficiaries of one system who seek to quickly move to the other for services. Section 13 of the bill would direct VA to expand the number VA employees dedicated to serving the Veterans Readjustment Counseling Service's Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) Outreach Program. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing earlier this year at which two GWOT counselors testified on the numerous services their program provides to returning service members, specifically Guardsmen and Reservists coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. In many cases, these GWOT counselors are the first VA officials to welcome home our troops at the airport, provide them with their first briefing on VA benefits and services, and steer those in need to counseling services and health care centers. This is a creative, vibrant program with only 50 employees that is just now beginning to reach its peak effect on returning combat veterans. I believe VA should expand its efforts in this area to ensure we are reaching everyone we can. Section 14 of this bill would require VA to expand the number of Vet Centers capable of providing tele-health services and counseling to veterans returning from combat. Currently there are 21 Vet Center facilities that maintain this capability. And while that is a laudable effort, I believe we can do better. Tele-medicine offers a tremendous opportunity to bring many health services, particularly mental health services, to veterans who reside in areas of the country where those services would not otherwise be available. Practitioners are showing great results with tele-health services for mental health treatment, and our veterans are getting the services they need, closer to home, in a more timely fashion. Expansion of such success only seems logical. Finally, section 15 of this bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a report on all of the mental health data maintained by VA, including the actual geographic locations of collection and whether all of these points of data should continue to be collected. Over the next several weeks, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will be taking testimony on this bill and other legislation introduced by Senators to improve the range of services and benefits available to our Nation's veterans. I look forward to working with my colleagues throughout the rest of this session of Congress on these and other important efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce legislation that will expand the services available to our Nation's veterans and their dependents, and improve the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide health care services to this same group of deserving Americans. I take a few moments now to explain the provisions of this legislation. First, the bill would, in section 2, exempt veterans enrolled for VA care from all copayments for hospice care services provided by VA. Over the past several years, VA has greatly expanded its efforts to provide compassionate end-of-life care for our Nation's heroes. Last year, Congress made efforts to ensure that the surviving spouses and children would not receive bills for such services following the deaths of such veterans who were in the hospice program. Unfortunately, last year's legislation did not go far enough, and today some veterans' families are still paying for this care. This provision would end that practice in all hospice care settings. Section 3 of the bill would exempt former Prisoners of War from copayments that are applicable to care in a VA extended care facility. Congress has already exempted this deserving group of veterans from other VA medical copayments, and this provision would complete the range of services available to these veterans free of charge. In addition, this section bill would remove the requirement that VA maintain the exact number of nursing home care beds in VA facilities as it had during fiscal year 1998. Now before some suggest that I am advocating the reduction in services available to veterans, I'd like to explain how the current requirement came about and why I believe it should be reconsidered. The requirement that VA maintain a specified level of nursing home beds was inserted into the law in 1999 when Congress enacted legislation to expand options for non-institutional, long-term care services available to veterans. At that time, some felt that by growing the non-institutional care program, VA would seek simply to shut all of its institutional care capacity. So in a compromise, Congress decided that fiscal year 1998 would be the year against which changes in the institutional care program would be measured. And then it required that VA maintain all of the beds it had in 1998. Since 1998, VA has increased the number of veterans it treats by nearly 2 million. Yet, year after year, VA reports to Congress that it does not need to maintain the number of nursing home beds required by law. Does that mean VA is closing beds unnecessarily? No. It means VA has followed the progress of medicine and is offering tens-of-thousands of veterans non-institutional care services while keeping them at home rather than in VA nursing home beds. I do not believe that Congress should continue to mandate the maintenance of an arbitrarily-determined number of beds in a system that is trying to effectively use every dollar it can to provide real and needed services to our veterans. This provision reflects that belief. The fourth section of the legislation, if enacted, would ensure that veterans who seek emergency medical services at the nearby community medical facilities are treated no differently financially than if the care had been provided at a VA medical facility. This is an important issue in the provision of quality health care for our veterans. VA has some evidence that veterans who need emergency services are bypassing local medical facilities, and are attempting to ``make it'' to a VA facility even in the face of an emergency, because of concerns that VA's reimbursement policies for non-VA provided emergency care will result in the veteran paying more out-of-pocket costs. Clearly, that is not the kind of behavior Congress wants to encourage in our veterans. Nor is it good medicine. This provision would clarify once and for all that veterans will be treated equally regardless of where emergency care treatment is sought. Section 5 of the bill would authorize VA to provide or pay for up to the first fourteen days of care for a newborn child of an enrolled female veteran who delivers her baby under VA provided, or VA financed, care. As most of my colleagues know, VA provides what it calls a ``comprehensive package of health benefits for eligible veterans.'' Unfortunately, for the increasing number of female veterans enrolling for VA care, the word ``comprehensive'' does not include coverage for a newborn's first few days of needed care. This type of arrangement is common in the private sector. In my judgment, this is an issue we must address to assure our female service members that, as more and more of them join the service and change the face of the American military, we will make certain that the face of VA changes right along with it. Section 6 would allow private health care providers to recoup costs for care provided to children afflicted with spina bifida of Vietnam veterans--children who are, by law, entitled to VA-provided care--when the costs are not fully covered by VA reimbursements. This so-called ``balance billing'' authority would prohibit charging individual patients or veterans themselves. Only a beneficiary with private insurance could have his or her insurance cover charges not covered by VA. This provision is important because it will provide a financial incentive to many providers who, unfortunately in some cases today, are not willing to provide the very specialized services needed by these children because some costs are not reimbursed by VA at a sufficient rate. Section 7 of this bill would increase the authorized level of funding for the Homeless Grant and Per Diem Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I know all of my colleagues would agree that any man or woman who served this country in uniform should not be among the unfortunate Americans who find themselves on the street without shelter. VA has made tremendous strides in this area by providing grant programs, health care services, mental health treatment, and other assistance to those veterans who do find themselves on the street. This provision would ensure that good programs remain on track for the foreseeable future. The eighth section of this bill would authorize VA medical centers to employ Marriage and Family Therapists. I realize that to some of my colleagues this may sound as though VA is beginning to become a family health care system and not a veterans' health care system. I want to assure any who harbor such concerns that this is not the intention or the purpose of this proposed authority. Rather, this proposal seeks to recognize that for some veterans, the trauma and experiences of war may lead to troubles at home. Often in these situations, treatment as a family is more effective for the betterment of the veteran. Of course, preservation of the family is an extremely important byproduct of this treatment approach as well. I do not believe it is incompatible with the mission of treating our veterans to focus on their family well- being when it is appropriate. The military is offering many of these services already to those who are returning from overseas. These programs are receiving good reviews from those in the mental health and counseling professions. It seems only logical that we extend successful ideas from the military experience to our veterans. Section 9 would provide pay equity for the national Director of VA's Nursing Service. Currently, this position is paid at a rate that is less than all of the other service chiefs at VA's Central Office. I believe correcting this inequity is not only a matter of fairness, but a long overdue recognition that VA's nursing service is just as important to the provision of health services for our veterans as the pharmacy service, the dental service, and other such services within VA. Section 10 of this bill would allow VA to conduct cost-comparison studies within its health care system. Mr. President, such studies are invaluable tools for government to measure whether its current workforce has identified the most efficient and effective means of delivering services to our veterans, and value to the taxpayers. In my opinion, any organization that fails to measure its performance against others in the same field will quickly cease to be an effective organization. VA is--and it must continue to be--an effective and efficient health care provider. This small change in the law will provide one additional tool to ensure that is the case far into the future. Section 11 of my legislation would focus on an area of great importance to many members of the Senate: The treatment of mental health issues for those returning from service in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I know many of us have read reports that estimate that as many as 20 percent of those serving overseas will need some mental health care services to cope with the stress of serving in a war zone. First, I want to say to my colleagues that the Department of Veterans Affairs already has in place numerous programs and services to respond to the needs of those veterans seeking care for mental health issues. Still, as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I believe it is important that we assure our brave servicemen and women, and the American people, that we are not satisfied with merely maintaining VA's ability to provide mental health services. Rather, we must assure that VA continues to improve and expand the treatment options available. This section of the bill would authorize $95 million in both fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to improve and expand the mental health services available to our Nation's veterans. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be required to devote specific resources to certain important areas of treatment including, but not limited to $5 million to expand the number of clinical teams devoted to the treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; $50 million to expand the services available to diagnose and treat veterans with substance abuse problems; $10 million to expand tele-health capabilities in areas of the country where access to basic mental health services is nearly impossible; $1 million to improve educational programs available for primary care providers to learn more about diagnosing and treating veterans with mental illness; $20 million to expand the number of community-based outpatient clinics with mental health services; and $5 million to expand VA's Mental Health Intensive Case Management Teams. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that I am taking this approach because I am concerned about the availability of these services as much as anyone in the Senate. But, I am also concerned about recent moves to ``micro-manage'' the VA health care system by requiring, for example, that certain percentages of VA's budget be spent on one service or another, or that every VA facility have some certain clinical service available. These approaches, while well- intentioned, run the risk of diverting important resources away from services that are extremely important to our veterans. My approach is to put Congress on record as expecting improvements and expansion in certain important programs, attaching a reasonable amount of money to those efforts, and then monitoring the progress closely from the Veterans' Committee. Section 12 addresses a point of legal contention that has restricted the sharing of medical information between the Department of Defense and VA. As a result, record transfers for patients who would be VA patients are not arriving in VA hands as quickly and as seamlessly as they should. This provision would make clear that DoD and VA may exchange health records information for the purpose of providing health care to beneficiaries of one system who seek to quickly move to the other for services. Section 13 of the bill would direct VA to expand the number VA employees dedicated to serving the Veterans Readjustment Counseling Service's Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) Outreach Program. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing earlier this year at which two GWOT counselors testified on the numerous services their program provides to returning service members, specifically Guardsmen and Reservists coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. In many cases, these GWOT counselors are the first VA officials to welcome home our troops at the airport, provide them with their first briefing on VA benefits and services, and steer those in need to counseling services and health care centers. This is a creative, vibrant program with only 50 employees that is just now beginning to reach its peak effect on returning combat veterans. I believe VA should expand its efforts in this area to ensure we are reaching everyone we can. Section 14 of this bill would require VA to expand the number of Vet Centers capable of providing tele-health services and counseling to veterans returning from combat. Currently there are 21 Vet Center facilities that maintain this capability. And while that is a laudable effort, I believe we can do better. Tele-medicine offers a tremendous opportunity to bring many health services, particularly mental health services, to veterans who reside in areas of the country where those services would not otherwise be available. Practitioners are showing great results with tele-health services for mental health treatment, and our veterans are getting the services they need, closer to home, in a more timely fashion. Expansion of such success only seems logical. Finally, section 15 of this bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a report on all of the mental health data maintained by VA, including the actual geographic locations of collection and whether all of these points of data should continue to be collected. Over the next several weeks, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will be taking testimony on this bill and other legislation introduced by Senators to improve the range of services and benefits available to our Nation's veterans. I look forward to working with my colleagues throughout the rest of this session of Congress on these and other important efforts. 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 introduce the Idaho Land Enhancement Act of 2005. Simply put, this legislation directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to exchange land with the State of Idaho involving key parcels of land from the Boise Foothills to North Idaho. The proposed exchange is exceptional in many respects. First, the concept for the proposed land exchange originated from a local conservation effort led by the city of Boise and local conservation groups including the Idaho Conservation League. Since the late 1960's the issue of conserving the Boise Foothills has been a significant concern of the community. Conservation efforts have continued to grow in support within the community, culminating in May 2001 with the citizens of Boise, in one of the highest voter turnouts in city history, electing to tax themselves in order to provide funding to secure permanent public open space in the Boise Foothills. Next, the collaboration between the city of Boise, the State of Idaho, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management has produced an agreement that has yielded a proposal benefiting the State's endowment beneficiaries while addressing the common threats of fire and hazardous fuels, invasive species, habitat fragmentation and unmanaged recreation associated with urban interface with Federal lands. The proposal uses both Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land to balance an exchange with Idaho State Endowment lands on an equal value basis. Last, the process has been open, transparent, and has wide support throughout the State. The city of Boise has facilitated public meetings, provided opportunities for public comment, and has made the maps of the exchange available to the public. The City has met with all of the affected tribes and counties. In addition, the multi-agency group completed evaluations of timber values, minerals, cultural resources, water rights, legal access, wildlife, fisheries, vegetation, hydrology, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and specific habitat. The evaluations show that no major environmental effect will occur as a result of the exchange. In fact, The Nature Conservancy independently reviewed the data and compared it to their eco-regional planning efforts and concluded that the exchange has ``limited potential to impact biodiversity values'' and they support the exchange. The city of Boise has made a substantial investment of local property tax dollars in the facilitation of this land exchange package. This exchange will complete a statewide collaborative process that represents a legacy of local, State and Federal cooperation benefiting land management interests throughout the State. This exchange will enhance land in both the northern and southern parts of the State. It is an example of how local, State, and Federal partners can come together to collaboratively develop an exchange in which the public and the land are the ultimate beneficiaries.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Idaho Land Enhancement Act of 2005. Simply put, this legislation directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to exchange land with the State of Idaho involving key parcels of land from the Boise Foothills to North Idaho. The proposed exchange is exceptional in many respects. First, the concept for the proposed land exchange originated from a local conservation effort led by the city of Boise and local conservation groups including the Idaho Conservation League. Since the late 1960's the issue of conserving the Boise Foothills has been a significant concern of the community. Conservation efforts have continued to grow in support within the community, culminating in May 2001 with the citizens of Boise, in one of the highest voter turnouts in city history, electing to tax themselves in order to provide funding to secure permanent public open space in the Boise Foothills. Next, the collaboration between the city of Boise, the State of Idaho, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management has produced an agreement that has yielded a proposal benefiting the State's endowment beneficiaries while addressing the common threats of fire and hazardous fuels, invasive species, habitat fragmentation and unmanaged recreation associated with urban interface with Federal lands. The proposal uses both Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land to balance an exchange with Idaho State Endowment lands on an equal value basis. Last, the process has been open, transparent, and has wide support throughout the State. The city of Boise has facilitated public meetings, provided opportunities for public comment, and has made the maps of the exchange available to the public. The City has met with all of the affected tribes and counties. In addition, the multi-agency group completed evaluations of timber values, minerals, cultural resources, water rights, legal access, wildlife, fisheries, vegetation, hydrology, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and specific habitat. The evaluations show that no major environmental effect will occur as a result of the exchange. In fact, The Nature Conservancy independently reviewed the data and compared it to their eco-regional planning efforts and concluded that the exchange has ``limited potential to impact biodiversity values'' and they support the exchange. The city of Boise has made a substantial investment of local property tax dollars in the facilitation of this land exchange package. This exchange will complete a statewide collaborative process that represents a legacy of local, State and Federal cooperation benefiting land management interests throughout the State. This exchange will enhance land in both the northern and southern parts of the State. It is an example of how local, State, and Federal partners can come together to collaboratively develop an exchange in which the public and the land are the ultimate beneficiaries.