Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have 7 minutes remaining?

Mr. CRAIG. Let me again thank all who participated in this debate. There are differences as to how we approach providing for our veterans. You see those differences embodied in part in the two amendments that are before us, either the Murray amendment or the Ensign amendment. I think it is important, though, that we do, for the record, correct or at least add information to some of the statements. My colleague from Illinois is concerned, as we all are, about PTSD. The Ensign-Craig amendment would provide an additional $100 million that can be devoted to, of course, mental illness. It is of great concern to us as our veterans come home from Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly whole in body but not whole in mind. That is recognized both by the President, by the Veterans' Administration, and by all of us, and we plus up that budget substantially to do so. Another area that has not been mentioned that is critically necessary for rural veterans who find themselves in an emergency environment and need to gain access to emergency rooms of the hospital and the community and not a veterans facility--we have $43 million in the budget to ensure that veterans who seek emergency care in nonveteran facilities are treated exactly the same as they would be as if they were in veterans facilities. Let's do the numbers. The Senator from Washington says the President's numbers only include $80 million. That $80 million is general revenue and the balance is in collections and that is real money and that is there all the time and that is in the budget and that is $751 million. You have to do all the math, all the time. That is what we are doing here to make sure the numbers are accurate. So you take the $751 million in the President's request, general fund revenue and collections, and you take the chairman's mark of $40 million, and you take the Craig-Enzi amendment or Enzi-Craig amendment of $410 million and add it up and it is a 1.201 increase, health care, 3.7 percent increase over last year. It is not a tax increase. I always find the rhetoric interesting. My colleague from Washington says there are $70 billion worth of tax cuts in this proposal. They are not tax cuts. If you don't enact it, it is a tax increase. Those cuts are already in place. This is the assurance of the continuum of those tax cuts. Take them out, it is a tax increase. It is a matter of semantics. It is also a matter of fact. What is being offered by the Senator from Washington, as she pluses up the veterans budget, is gained by tax increases. Let me put it this way: Taxes that would be asked to be paid by working men and women, America's workforce, America's veterans. They are not paying them now. They would pay them then. My suggestion is that is a tax increase. Let me close with a couple of more analyses. We are mighty proud of what our President and what we have done over the last 4 years for the veterans of America and for the quality of health care and service delivery of the Veterans' Administration. Here it is, a 43-percent increase. We have gone from $48.8 billion in 2001 to $69.8 billion in 2005, and we are now plusing that up into the $70-plus billion range, $71 billion. That is total spending. Let's look at health care for a moment. There are substantial increases there. We increased health care when veterans were asking for it. They went from over 4 million vets into the services in 2001 to now almost 8 million vets, and we have an increase from $21 billion in 2001 to $29.6 billion. In doing so, America now says the veterans health care service is one of the finest health care delivery services in the country. The test for Senators ought to be: Do we damage it? No, we do not. Do we assure those coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan with the true needs of the services provided have access? Yes, we do. No question about that. The President assured it. He approached it a different way. We assure it by approaching it from within the Federal budget instead of raising taxes to accomplish that. I believe the Enzi-Craig-Vitter-Hutchison amendment does exactly what most Senators would want to ask of us in relation to the care for our veterans. It is a responsible approach. It is clearly a defensible approach. We believe that we have approached it in the right manner to solve the problems and retain the consistency of quality, of improvement and access to the veterans health care system. I believe all time has expired. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, fellow Senators, you just voted to increase the veterans budget by $1.2 billion. A 3.7-percent increase over last year's spending meets all the service requirements, meets incoming new veterans out of Iraq, serves the needs of America's veterans. The amendment you are now being asked to vote on is nearly a $3 billion increase, and a major tax increase to offset it. If you want to raise taxes, if you want to go way beyond what is necessary to keep the quality of veterans health care alive, you should vote for this. But I hope you would not only serve your veterans but would be fiscally responsible and wouldn't raise taxes on America's working men and women, especially America's working veterans. We ought not have to tax them to serve them in their health care. But that is what the Akaka-Murray amendment does. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to recognize Ms. Tina Taysom and Mr. Greg Cannell of American Falls, ID, for their heroic actions in saving the life of a rural mail carrier who skidded off a winding mountain road and into a nearby river in Idaho. On December 1, 2003, Ron Meadville, a rural mail carrier, was returning from his 110-mile route along the remote North Fork road northwest of Salmon, ID. Friends Tina Taysom and Greg Cannell were traveling ahead of Meadville on the same road. They pulled over to look at some deer, and Meadville passed them. When they pulled back on the road and rounded a bend, they couldn't see the mail truck but saw a set of skid marks that veered off the road, toward the near-frozen river. Meadville had hit a patch of ice that sent his truck hurtling over the 25-foot embankment to land upside down in the Salmon River, in more than 5 feet of 33-degree water. Greg Cannell and Tina Taysom acted immediately. They stopped their truck, jumped out, slid down the steep embankment, and plunged into the river. After several strenuous attempts, they were able to pull open the truck door, grab Meadville's hand, and pull him out through an opening between the seat and the doorjamb. By this time, Meadville was experiencing hypothermia. Taysom and Cannell pulled Meadville up the embankment to their vehicle. Meadville managed to tell them he lived about a mile away, and they took him to his home, where they helped Meadville's wife care for him. They refused any care for themselves until they knew Meadville was safe. Greg Cannell and Tina Taysom put themselves in harm's way to save a stranger. They refuse to be called heroes, but they are truly heroes to Ron Meadville and his family. Without their courageous actions, Ron Meadville would not be alive today. Their actions truly were heroic, and it is a pleasure for me to honor them and share their story.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 17, 2005, for a committee hearing titled ``Back from the Battlefield: Are we providing the proper care for America's Wounded Warriors?'' The hearing will take place in Room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me stop at this point and yield to my colleague from Nevada for the purpose of the offering of an amendment, further discussion on this important issue of veterans funding, and then I believe we will be joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison, to further discuss this before we close out for the evening. But I believe we can turn to the Senate tomorrow and ask them to vote on a very responsible veterans budget as proposed by the Senate. With that, I yield to Senator Ensign.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for his amendment. I believe it is responsible and appropriate, as we plus up this budget, to assure that the veterans are adequately served and that we adjust appropriately for the new veterans coming in from Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I yield to the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is the time remaining on our side?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will close. I think the Senator from Washington has time left that she would like to use. I think every Senator who comes to the floor of the Senate to speak about our veterans is committed without question to assuring to the veterans community of this country that we will honor their needs. It is our responsibility. I happen to disagree with the Senator from Washington. I do not think we need to raise taxes to meet the necessary needs at this time. Veterans are hard working, too, and they pay taxes. But there are additional moneys necessary from what were moneys proposed by the President, and that is exactly what this amendment does, along with the additional plus up that the committee itself has accomplished. When the Ensign-Craig-Vitter-Hutchison amendment is adopted, the net increase will be over $1.2 billion of new money for the Veterans Administration to spend. What do we do with that money? I mentioned we add $100 million for VA prosthetic care. We look seriously at those who are tremendously injured in body, but we also recognize that there may be veterans injured not of body but of mind, and mental health programs are increased. The Ensign-Craig amendment to the budget resolution will mean an additional $100 million can be devoted this year to expanding treatment and services in mental illness for America's veterans who suffer PTSD as a result of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, the budget proposes $43 million to ensure that veterans who seek emergency care in non-VA facilities are treated exactly the same as if they had sought care at a VA facility. Clearly, across my large expansive State of Idaho--it is true of the State of Washington--we cannot have a veterans hospital or a care center in every community, and yet veterans live there and emergency care is sometimes necessary. We assure that they can enter that emergency room door and be treated prior to moving on to a veterans care facility. Finally, this budget with the $410 million added by the Ensign-Craig- Vitter-Hutchison amendment will provide $19 million for the treatment of homeless veterans. That may sound like a small amount of money, but it will bring this program up to the $100 million level and help us build on gains we have already made in reaching out to this incredibly vulnerable population of veterans. I can stand on the floor of the Senate tonight with the offering of this amendment, as chairman of the Veterans Affairs' Committee in the Senate, working with all of my colleagues and assure them that all of those gains we talked about earlier that we all share, we recognize, and we are proud of, whether it be in mandatory spending or whether it be in health care, are gains that will be sustained by this budget in 2006, that we can build on the strength of those gains and assure that veterans who are in the categories of 1 through 6 will be truly served. Those who have service-connected disabilities or problems in other areas will be served. We recognize that the 20,000 veterans' home beds across the States will remain open and available to veterans by not bringing down the per diem. This is a sincerely responsible budget to deal with America's veterans' needs as we have always done as a Congress and as we will continue to do in the 2006 budget and into the future. A tight budget year? You bet it is. Need we be fiscally responsible? You bet we should be. Should we raise taxes on the working men and women of America to accomplish that? No, we should not. What we should do is exactly what we are doing tonight: reestablishing priorities within the overall budget and saying here is an area of true need and care, a responsibility that we have to address, and we are open, caring, and responsible in addressing it. I am proud to serve as chairman of the committee. I am proud to work with my colleague from Texas who is the chairman of the appropriating committee. With the combination of all of us in a very real and bipartisan way, we are going to meet the needs of veterans as we always have, and we are going to meet them with a budget that represents a 3.7-percent increase over last year. In as tight a fiscal year as we are in, that is a large and responsible and sensitive increase of which I am proud. I will yield the floor, and we will be back tomorrow to debate this important issue as we ask our colleagues to support us in this effort. I do believe when we look at all the facts and figures, when we look at the 43-percent increase in veterans spending over the last 4 years, when we see the increase of veterans going out and the quality of health care going up and the efficiencies that we have asked the system to produce--and it has produced it--then this is in itself a truly responsible and caring budget, and I am proud to be a sponsor of it along with my colleagues. We will ask the Senate to support us in this effort. I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1160, which was received from the House.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the budget resolution. We will continue the amendment process tomorrow morning. Under the previous order, we will conclude debate on five amendments during tomorrow morning's session. It is anticipated that we will have votes in relation to all five of these amendments around 1 p.m. tomorrow, and we will keep Senators posted as to the timing of these stacked series of votes. For the remainder of the day, the Senate will continue working through the amendments on the budget resolution. We have made good progress on the resolution thus far, but we still have a long way to go prior to passage. We will be very busy over the next couple of days, and Senators should continue to make themselves available for the remainder of the week.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Harkin for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, the Senate adjourn until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, March 16. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 18, the budget resolution; provided further that Senator Feinstein then be recognized for 20 minutes as provided under the previous order; further, that following those remarks, Senator Specter be recognized to offer the NIH amendment under the limitations provided under the earlier agreement.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am please to recognize the week of March 13 through 19, 2005, as National Safe Place Week. As my colleagues know, the Senate adopted a resolution last week providing for this designation. I thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for her work on this issue, and I also thank the other cosponsors of this resolution: Senator Boxer, Senator Cochran, Senator Crapo, Senator DeWine, Senator Dodd, Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold, Senator Hatch, Senator Inhofe, Senator Inouye, Senator Isakson, Senator Johnson, Senator Kohl, Senator Landrieu, Senator Lieberman, Senator Lincoln, Senator Lugar, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Murkowski. The Senate's action recognizes the importance of Project Safe Place and sends a message that we will keep working to protect our children. In countless ours of selfless work, volunteers truly do make a difference every day, and in passing this resolution, the Senate applauds the tireless efforts of the thousands of dedicated volunteers across the nation for their many contributions to the youth of our Nation through Project Safe Place. Events of the day may turn our attention overseas, but it is essential to remember those who are fighting an ongoing battle right here at home to protect this Nation's must valuable resource: our children. Young people are the future of this Nation; they need to be both valued and protected. Sadly, however, as my colleagues know, this precious resource is threatened daily. There is a tremendous initiative between the public and private sector that has been reaching out to youth for over 20 years. Project Safe Place is a program that was developed to assist our Nation's youth and families in crisis. This partnership creates a network of private businesses trained to refer youth in need to the local service providers who can help them. Those businesses display a Safe Place sign so that young people can easily recognize a ``safe place'' for them to go to receive help. The goal of National Safe Place Week is to recognize the thousands of individuals who work to make Project Safe Place a reality. From trained volunteers to seasoned professionals, these dedicated individuals are working together with the resources in their local communities and through their ties across the Nation to serve young people. Because of Project Safe Place, this all happens under a well-known symbol of safety for in-crisis youth. Project Safe Place is a simple program to implement in any local community, and it works. Young people are more likely to seek help in locations that are familiar and nonthreatening to them. By creating a network of Safe Places across the Nation, all youth will have access to needed help, counseling, or a safe place to stay. However, though the program has already been established in 42 States, there are still too many communities that do not know about this valuable youth resource. If your State does not already have a Safe Place organization, please consider facilitating this worthwhile resource so that young people who are abused, neglected, or whose futures are jeopardized by physical or emotional trauma will have access to immediate help and safety in your community. To create more Project Safe Place sites in Idaho, the staff in several of my State offices have completed the training to make them Safe Place sites, and now have the skills and ability to assist troubled youth. In the coming years, Project Safe Place hopes that every child in America will have the opportunity to connect with someone who can provide immediate help by easily recognizing the Safe Place sign.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in this day of runaway medical costs, I would like to take a moment to highlight one cost-effective component of healthcare; Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT). MNT can be used to promote health and functionality and effects the quality of life for many Americans. MNT is also an effective disease management component that lessens chronic disease risk, slows disease progression and reduces symptoms. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries can have access to MNT, but only for the care of diabetes and kidney disease. The legislation that I have introduced, along with Mr. Bingaman and other colleagues, would give the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services the authority, using the National Coverage Determination (NCD) process, to expand the MNT benefit beyond diabetes and renal diseases. Currently, Congress must pass legislation for beneficiaries to receive MNT for each and every condition or disease for which MNT proves itself to be cost effective. Choosing to rely on the NCD process would allow CMS to make decisions based upon the science, and establish the extent to which Medicare will cover specific services, procedures or technologies on a national basis. This is what the NCD is designed to do. CMS reported to Congress last year that there are other conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, HIV/AIDS and cancer, where evidence supports the cost-effectiveness of MNT as part of the care plan. It is time to make the MNT benefit more preventive in nature, and combat diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia in the early stages of the diseases. It makes good sense for CMS, which routinely reviews the science behind recommendations, to direct this benefit appropriately without having to get Congressional approval for each and every disease. It is important to note that this new language does not mandate any expansion; it only gives CMS the authority in include coverage of MNT based on scientific evidence that the proposed coverage is reasonable, necessary and cost effective. I encourage your support for this legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in this day of runaway medical costs, I would like to take a moment to highlight one cost-effective component of healthcare; Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT). MNT can be used to promote health and functionality and effects the quality of life for many Americans. MNT is also an effective disease management component that lessens chronic disease risk, slows disease progression and reduces symptoms. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries can have access to MNT, but only for the care of diabetes and kidney disease. The legislation that I have introduced, along with Mr. Bingaman and other colleagues, would give the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services the authority, using the National Coverage Determination (NCD) process, to expand the MNT benefit beyond diabetes and renal diseases. Currently, Congress must pass legislation for beneficiaries to receive MNT for each and every condition or disease for which MNT proves itself to be cost effective. Choosing to rely on the NCD process would allow CMS to make decisions based upon the science, and establish the extent to which Medicare will cover specific services, procedures or technologies on a national basis. This is what the NCD is designed to do. CMS reported to Congress last year that there are other conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, HIV/AIDS and cancer, where evidence supports the cost-effectiveness of MNT as part of the care plan. It is time to make the MNT benefit more preventive in nature, and combat diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia in the early stages of the diseases. It makes good sense for CMS, which routinely reviews the science behind recommendations, to direct this benefit appropriately without having to get Congressional approval for each and every disease. It is important to note that this new language does not mandate any expansion; it only gives CMS the authority in include coverage of MNT based on scientific evidence that the proposed coverage is reasonable, necessary and cost effective. I encourage your support for this legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand the vote is about to start. I yield back all of our time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think this side is prepared to yield back the time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Illinois. I think the Congress agrees with him, the House agrees with him. I ask the Senate to support the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2005. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the reauthorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the review of Department of Defense detention operations and detainee interrogation techniques.