Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the passing of a dedicated, 28-year employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs Insurance Center, Mr. George Poole. Until his untimely death, Mr. Poole served within the VA Insurance Service, widely regarded as a model of efficiency and service excellence within the Federal Government. We in the Congress spent a considerable amount of time on the supplemental appropriations bill debating enhancements to insurance benefits for our servicemembers fighting abroad. We were successful in not only increasing the amount of life insurance benefits available for servicemembers, but also creating a new traumatic injury insurance benefit for those severely disabled. Without the assistance of public servants like George, who provide the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the Congress, with invaluable technical assistance on all legislation affecting insurance benefits, our job would be very difficult. George began his life-long dedication to public service while serving honorably in the U.S. Air Force from 1964 through 1968. Subsequent to his service, he then received a bachelor's degree and a law degree, taking full advantage of the Department of Veterans Affairs- administered GI bill. There is little doubt that his time in the military service of his country, and his subsequent studies under the GI bill, inspired him to pursue a career dedicated to helping his fellow veterans. This dedication to fellow veterans translated into a long and distinguished 28-year career with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs where he served his Nation from 1977 until his death. His long career with the Department of Veterans Affairs was entirely within the Insurance Service where he served in an impressive litany of capacities. Starting as a claims examiner in the death claims activity, he worked his way up through numerous management level positions including section chief, division chief and finally culminating his distinguished career as chief, program administration, a senior management position. In this, the final step in his career ladder, he was responsible for a variety of duties, not the least of which was composing legislative initiatives concerning servicemembers' and veterans' group life insurance programs. This insurance coverage is intended for members of this Nation's Active-Duty military and Reserve components, as well as veterans recently released from Active service, who are in, or recently were in, harm's way defending the United States. The importance of assuring that all members of the military, veterans, and their families are properly provided for in their time of need goes without question. Therefore, George's work will undoubtedly have a lasting effect on the families of thousands. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation on behalf of a grateful Nation to the Poole family for George's dedicated service to this Nation's veterans. I also extend my heartfelt sympathies to the Poole family during their time of sorrow.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 11, 2005, at 2 p.m., in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 100, to authorize the exchange of certain land in the State of Colorado; S. 235 and H.R. 816, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to sell certain parcels of Federal land in Carson City and Douglas County, NV; S. 404, to make a technical correction relating to the land conveyance authorized by Public Law 108-67; S. 741, to provide for the disposal of certain Forest Service administrative sites in the State of Oregon, and for other purposes; S. 761, to rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in the State of Idaho as the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in honor of the late Morely Nelson, an international authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in the establishment of this National Conservation Area, and for other purposes; and H.R. 486, to provide for a land exchange involving private land and Bureau of Land Management land in the vicinity of Holloman Air Force Base, NM, for the purpose of removing private land from the required safety zone surrounding munitions storage bunkers at Holloman Air Force Base. 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.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, prior to a vote on the amendment as amended, I would like to speak for up to 3 minutes. I have sought recognition to comment on an amendment I have offered to address a tremendous gap in coverage that exists in our treatment of the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, who are fighting for our country. My amendment addresses that coverage gap through the creation of a new ``Traumatic Injury Protection'' insurance program for the benefit of severely disabled servicemembers. But before I describe my amendment, let me further discuss the nature of the problem my amendment would attend to. It is widely known that due to incredible advances in medicine, servicemembers who may not have survived life-threatening injuries in previous wars are now making it back home from Iraq and Afghanistan alive. That is the good news. The bad news, however, is that they must live with injuries that may have left them without their limbs, sight, hearing, speech, or ability to even move. All of my colleagues have likely met with these brave men and women in their home States, or right here in Washington, DC, at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. They are fighting for their lives. They are attempting to learn through physical and occupational therapy how to reintegrate back into society. Needless to say, relearning things I and my colleagues take for granted every day--how to walk, how to read, how to simply make breakfast in the morning--can take months or, quite possibly, years. It is during this rehabilitation period at military hospitals that the need for additional financial resources is most acute. For many Guard and Reserve members at Walter Reed, they already have foregone higher paying civilian jobs prior to their deployment. Lengthy recovery periods simply add to the financial strain they bear. In addition, family members of injured soldiers bear the burdens necessary to travel from great distances to provide the love and emotional support that is absolutely essential for any successful rehabilitation. Spouses quit jobs to spend time with their husbands at the hospital. Parents spare no expense to be with their injured children. To meet these needs, my amendment would create a ``Traumatic Injury Protection'' insurance rider as part of the existing Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Program. The traumatic insurance would provide coverage for severely disabling conditions at a cost of approximately $1 a month for participating servicemembers. The payment for those suffering a severe disability would be immediate and would range from $25,000 to a maximum of $100,000. The purpose of the immediate payment would be to give injured servicemembers and their families the financial cushion they need to sustain them before their medical discharge from service when veterans' benefits would kick in. The traumatic injuries covered under my amendment include: total and permanent loss of sight; loss of hands or feet; total and permanent loss of speech; total and permanent loss of hearing; quadriplegia; paraplegia; burns greater than second degree, covering 30 percent of the body or face; and certain traumatic brain injuries. The cost of the amendment is entirely reasonable given the cause. Informal CBO estimates put the FY2006 cost at $10 million. A very small price to pay to meet the needs of these wounded warriors. I cannot take credit for the idea behind this amendment. The credit must go to disabled veterans of the Wounded Warrior Project, run under the aegis of the United Spinal Association. Three Wounded Warrior veterans of the Iraq war visited my office last week to discuss the need to provide this type of an insurance benefit. One veteran, former Army SSG Heath Calhoun, had both of his legs amputated after being struck during a rocket propelled grenade attack in Iraq. Heath and his wife, Tiffany, who was present with him in my office, described the financial problems they endured after Tiffany quit her job to be with Heath during his convalescence. It took over a year before Heath was medically discharged from service. While the Calhoun family was able to make it through that extremely trying period, Heath told me he was adamant that other servicemembers in Iraq should not have to worry about finances should they, too, be injured. The quickest way to accomplish that, he told me, was to add a disability insurance rider-- financed by servicemembers through monthly premium deductions--to the existing life insurance program. I am honored to sponsor this amendment in the Senate on his, and the other veterans of the Wounded Warrior Project's, behalf. I would also like to personally complement Ryan Kelly, who also visited me last week. Mr. Kelly lost his right leg during an ambush near Baghdad almost 21 months ago. I am told he was a principal author of the draft legislation that culminated in the amendment I offer today. I thank him for his fine work. I also want to thank President Bush and his top administration officials for lending their support to this amendment. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and their staffs, who provided invaluable technical support in the drafting of this amendment. And most importantly, I want to thank my partner in this effort, the Committee's ranking member, Senator Daniel K. Akaka. I thank him for cosponsoring the amendment, and I thank him for joining me in a spirit of bipartisanship as we seek to serve veterans together. The supplemental already would make substantial improvements to benefits provided to survivors of those killed in the line of duty. I applaud those efforts. But I also remind my colleagues that we must be vigilant in our care for those who are still fighting to regain the normalcy of the lives they enjoyed prior to sustaining catastrophic injuries in defense of our freedom. I ask for your support.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate the concern of the Senator. I believe the amendment I am sending to the desk has been agreed to on both sides. There is a second degree. We should be able to move very quickly through it.

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

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

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his consideration, most importantly the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee for his cooperation, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his understanding and work with his staff. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, this was truly a team effort. Working with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, we have accomplished something for America's veterans, especially those very traumatically injured, that I think is critical and necessary. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, we have completed a tremendously important piece of legislation for the funding of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. During this afternoon, I, along with Senator Danny Akaka, my ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and Senator Mike DeWine, added an amendment I want to speak for a few moments about because I think it addresses a tremendous gap in the coverage that exists in the treatment of the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who are fighting for our country at this very moment. Our amendment addresses the coverage gap through the creation of a new traumatic injury protection insurance program for the benefit of severely disabled service members. But before I describe the amendment, let me further discuss the nature of the problem our amendment attempts to attend. It is widely known that due to the incredible advances in medicine, service members who may not have survived life-threatening injuries in previous wars are now making it back home alive from Iraq and Afghanistan. That is the good news. The bad news, however, is that they must live with injuries that may have left them without their limbs, sight, hearing, or speech ability, or even more. All of my colleagues have likely met these brave young men and women in their home visits or right here in Washington, DC, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. They are fighting for their lives. They are attempting to learn, through physical and occupational therapy, how to reengage back into society, needless to say, relearning things I and my colleagues probably take for granted every day--how to walk, how to read, how to simply make breakfast in the morning and what, for them, can take months and quite possibly years to learn how to redo. It is during this rehabilitation period at military hospitals the need for additional financial resources becomes most acute. For many Guard and Reserve members at Walter Reed, they already have foregone higher paying civilian jobs prior to their deployment. Lengthy recovery periods simply add to the financial stress they bear. In addition, family members of injured soldiers bear the burdens necessary to travel from great distances to provide the love and emotional support that is absolutely essential for any successful rehabilitation. Spouses quit jobs to spend time with their husbands at the hospital, or husbands quit jobs to spend time with their wives. Parents spare no expense to be with their injured children. To meet these needs, our amendment would create a traumatic injury protection insurance rider as part of an existing service member's group life insurance program. The traumatic insurance would provide coverage for severely disabling conditions at a cost of approximately $1 a month for participating service members. The payment for those suffering a severe disability would be immediate and would range from $25,000 to a maximum of $100,000. Of course, that is to tide them over during this period before the other benefits we all know about kick in. The purpose of the immediate payment would be to give injured service members and their families the financial cushion they need to sustain them before their medical discharge from the service, when veterans benefits kick in. The traumatic injuries covered under our amendment include total and permanent loss of sight, loss of hands or feet, total or permanent loss of speech, total or permanent loss of hearing, quadriplegia or paraplegia, burns greater than second degree, covering 30 percent of the body or face, certain traumatic brain injuries. Most of the amendment is entirely reasonable given the cause. Informal CBO estimates put the fiscal year 2006 cost at about $10 million, a very small price to pay to meet the needs of those wounded warriors. I cannot take credit for the idea behind this amendment. The great credit must go to disabled veterans from the Wounded Warrior Project, run under the aegis of the United Spinal Association. Three Wounded Warrior veterans from the Iraq war visited my office last week to discuss the need to provide this type of an insurance benefit. One veteran, former Army Staff Sergeant Heath Calhoun, had both of his legs amputated after being struck during a rocket-propelled grenade attack in Iraq. Heath and his wife, Tiffany, who was present with him in my office, described the financial problems they had endured after Tiffany quit her job to be with Heath during convalescence. It took over a year before Heath was medically discharged from service. While the Calhoun family was able to make it through, it was an extremely trying period. Heath told me he was adamant that other servicemen in Iraq should not have to worry about finances, should they, too, be injured. The quickest way to accomplish that, he told me, was to add a disability insurance rider, financed by service members through monthly premium deductions, to the existing life insurance program. I am honored to sponsor that amendment. It is now in the legislation that passed the Senate. The White House endorses it. The Defense Department endorses it. We had a press conference yesterday with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jim Nicholson, and the head of personnel at the DOD. I want to also personally compliment Ryan Kelly, who was a visitor also with me this past week. Mr. Kelly lost his right leg during an ambush near Baghdad almost 21 months ago. I am told he was a principal author of the draft legislation that culminated in the amendment we offered here this afternoon. I thank him for the tremendously fine work he did. I also thank President Bush, of course--I just mentioned him--and his top administration officials for lending their support to this amendment. Secretary Nicholson, Defense Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and their staffs provided invaluable technical support in drafting this amendment. The supplemental already would make substantial improvements to benefits provided to survivors of those killed in the line of duty. I applaud all of those efforts for our veterans and their survivors. I also remind my colleagues we must be vigilant in our care for those who are still fighting to regain the normalcy of the lives they enjoyed prior to sustaining catastrophic injuries in the defense of our freedoms. We now have moved this from an idea to an amendment, and now into the legislation that passed. I thank my colleagues in the Senate for their unanimous support of what is a very important piece of legislation that fills a hole and sustains a family and sustains a warrior in his or her greatest time of need--that of recovering from a traumatic injury and moving into civilian or military whole life again. I thank my colleagues for their support. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding that the Senator's amendment is before the Senate at this time. Would she object to it being set aside for the purpose of the consideration of another amendment?

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 call up amendment No. 475 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. Its purpose is to limit the use of funds to restrict the issuance of general licenses for travel to Cuba in connection with authorized sales activities and for other purposes. This amendment responds specifically to an action by the Department of Treasury in a new rulemaking process that dramatically curtails the potential of agricultural trade with the nation of Cuba. A group of us--one of my colleagues who is on the Senate floor, Max Baucus, and others--sent a letter to our Secretary of Agriculture. We know agricultural trade is extremely important for American agriculture. Last year, there was a surplus of $9.5 billion. That is going to drop precipitously this year to as much as $2.5 billion. Trade with Cuba has been growing. This amendment dramatically restricts that trade by the unwillingness of the Treasury Department to offer the necessary licenses for agricultural traders to travel to Cuba for that purpose. I hope we can consider it. It is very straightforward. I understand my colleague from Montana has a second-degree amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me say how disappointed I am that the action taken by the Senator from Nevada has just happened. We were working very hard to solve a very specific problem that the administration had chosen to rule by regulation, what I believe is a total subversion of a law that was critically necessary and helpful to our agricultural people. But that has now happened, and the Senator was in his right, as disappointed as I am, by what I believe is a near bushwhack, but then again that is chosen. I yield to the Senator from Georgia. Amendment No. 472, As Modified

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I strongly support the second-degree amendment. I think it has been well spoken by the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus. He has detailed exactly what we intend to do. The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee has echoed that very clearly. I support reinstating the 2000 act, in its clarity, in its simplicity, to allow agricultural and medical supply trade with Cuba. To see that changed by a regulatory process in the Treasury Department was not, nor is it, in my opinion, the intent of Congress. I thank my colleagues for their collective effort in reinstating this issue.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana has made the point so very clearly. We are sending a billion dollars to the tsunami region and the tsunami victims. We speak not once about reuniting families. The Senator from Louisiana traveled with our majority leader to the tsunami area immediately following that tragedy. She saw firsthand the phenomenal difficulties. I was in India recently on behalf of the congressional coalition on adoption and children and once again heard about the tremendous problems that are real to this region. One of the things that both the Senator from Louisiana and I know, because we immediately extended our assistance and opened our arms and said, Americans are ready to adopt these orphan children, we got a very nice, polite response: No, we will work to take care of our own. The reason that response was appropriate was because in those regions of that part of our world, in those cultures and religions, the extended family is phenomenally important. They work very hard at taking care of their own under most difficult situations of the kind we have seen. It isn't just that they can reach out their arms for love and care; it is that they have the resources to assume those children into their families who are part of the extended family. I do believe this is an appropriate amendment. It does some targeting within. It is not adding money to; it is not taking money away from; it is simply defining and shaping a very important use. I would hope we could agree on that and accept this amendment of the Senator from Louisiana as an appropriate amendment to the underlying bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, is it a religious test? Is it an environmental test? Is it a right-to-life test? Is it a racial test? No. Now we say it is Tom DeLay's test. If it weren't so deadly serious, it would be laughably humorous. But the other side has reduced what is a tremendously important constitutional responsibility of this Senate into a political game. From the very outset, when the Bush administration came to town, telegraphed across the Nation was a very clear message by our colleagues from the other side. Inside their internal party politics and beyond, it was all about politics and who they would reject, or who they would disallow the right to have a vote on the floor of the Senate when nominated by this President--if that nominee made it through the Judiciary Committee--whether they would be allowed to became a sitting judge in one of the courts of the United States for which the President, the Congress, and the Senate are responsible. Religious test, environmental test, a right-to-life test, a racial test, now a Tom DeLay test. Doesn't the other side have anything to talk about nowadays? Don't they have a policy they can take to the American people that will grasp the majority of the American people's minds or is it simply targeting around the edges? It is deadly serious, and it is not humorous at all. I rise today to discuss what is a most important constitutional conflict that has developed here in the Senate, and the response that I believe the Senate must act clearly and profoundly on this issue. In the time that I have been in public office, I have watched the Congress and participated in the Congress in conflicts that some would call historic by nature--an impeachment, a contested election, a midsession shift of party control of the Senate, just to name a few. But no issue, in my opinion, has threatened to alter the fundamental architecture of Government in the way that it is now being threatened today by the conflict over judicial nominees. Some of our colleagues have attempted to downplay the importance of the issue. I think that is what you heard this morning--a reduction of the issue to a debate about Tom DeLay's wisdom or a quote about the Internet. This is a lot more important than any one individual, including Tom DeLay. This is really about the Constitution of the United States. They have attempted to call it, Well, it is ``just business as usual'' to oppose nominees. They have tried to portray it as insignificant in terms of the number of judges. You just heard that a few moments ago about their selective filibuster. They say that is fair and full in the process. They have characterized it as a simple political struggle between the parties. Well, it is political, but it is constitutional. In reality, this issue has the potential of altering the balance of power established by the Constitution between our two branches of Government. I say this because the Constitution gives the Senate a role in Presidential appointments--the ability to accept or reject an appointment--and when a filibuster stops the Senate from taking that vote, it is frustrating the ability of all Senators to fulfill their constitutional duty, to exercise their fundamental constitutional power and participate in the essential function of the executive. A filibuster doesn't just prevent the Senate from acting, it also stops a nominee in midprocess without a final decision as to whether a nominee is confirmed or rejected, in essence giving the minority of Senators the power to prevent the executive branch from performing its constitutional duty. That is exactly what we have seen by design, by intent, and without question by votes. Let me talk about a candidate specifically. Let me talk about my own home State of Idaho and the President's nominee to the Ninth Circuit, Bill Myers. Bill has had a distinguished career as an attorney, particularly in the area of natural resources and the public land laws of our country where he is nationally recognized by both sides as an expert. These are issues of particular importance to public land States in the West, such as Idaho, represented in the Ninth Circuit. These issues aren't just professional business to him. In his private life, he has also long been an outdoorsman, and he has spent a significant amount of time volunteering for the National Park Service. Bill Myers is a public lands man. He loves it, he enjoys it, and he has participated in it. He came to this Senate to work for a former Senator, Allen Simpson, Deputy General Counsel at the Department of Energy, and Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States. The Senate confirmed him by unanimous consent as the Solicitor to the Department of the Interior in 2001. The entire Idaho delegation supports him. So what is wrong with Bill Myers? Is it a partisan issue? No. Democrat Governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus, Secretary of the Interior for President Carter, said Bill Myers is a man of great ``personal integrity, judicial temperament, and legal experience,'' as well as he has ``the ability to act fairly on matters of law that will come before him on the court.'' Democratic Governor from Wyoming, Mike Sullivan, said the same thing. So what is wrong with Bill Myers? Why, when last year the Senate Judiciary Committee voted him out, to send him to the Senate floor, did he never get a vote? Why was he refused a vote and filibustered? Let me tell you why. I know it firsthand. I served on the Judiciary Committee. I watched the vote. And the day the Senate Judiciary Committee voted him to the floor of the Senate, a senior member from the other side of that committee walked out with me and said: You know, Larry, your nominee is not going to get a vote on the floor. They had planned it well in advance. They had picked Bill Myers like they have picked other judicial nominees for their political pawn. The conversation went on, but it was private and I don't divulge it. But I will say this: From the conversation, I understood very clearly why Bill Myers would not get a vote and why they would filibuster him. It was just prior to the election, a very important election, a Presidential election. They had already picked the candidate they could argue had racial undertones. They had already picked the candidate they believed might be pro-life. They had already picked other candidates who didn't fit their political demographics. They picked Bill Myers because of his environmental record, and they told me so. Is that picking a person because of their talent, because of their experience, because of their judicial temperament, or is it simply playing what I call the ``nominee process of political roulette''? Pick the candidate who serves your political purpose and prove to your constituent base that you are out there for them. If that is what the nominating process has reduced itself to, then we are not only in a constitutional crisis--we are without question in a political constitutional crisis. No. What we do is important in the Senate. We affect the lives of all Americans in one way or another. But we have a constitutional responsibility when it comes to judges who are nominated by our President who are sent forth by the Judiciary Committee of this Senate once fully vetted and interviewed and questioned. Once the majority of that committee has spoken, and that nominee comes to the floor of the Senate, I firmly believe that nominee deserves an up-or-down vote. That is the history of the Senate. That is the responsibility of advice and consent. That is what this Senate has done down through the decades. But not now. Not in the politics of the other side. It does not serve their purpose anymore. So they have reduced it to the rhetoric of saying this is normal; this is usual; this is the politics of the day. Those Republicans are being terribly political at this moment. I don't agree with that. I have watched this much too long. It is now time the Senate act to establish once again our constitutional role in the advice and consent with the executive branch of Government. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, could I understand the time allocation? The Senator from Georgia has 1 hour.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Idaho has?

Mr. CRAIG. And the Senator from Massachusetts has?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Nevada for the purpose of the introduction of an amendment to the underlying bill. It would not take time from me. Then I will claim the floor for a few moments.