Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Well, I would like to have gone further than that. The concern we had, and what appears to be most visible today in the new use of Kelo, is open space for open space. Municipalities and counties are stepping out--with the cases I gave, Mr. Chairman--and saying that for purposes of parks, we find this is a new tool. Historically, parks were willing seller/willing buyer, and wetlands, and now other broader interpretations of ``public good.'' But Kelo, being specific and relating to private government entities taking property for private development, we do not speak to that. We think it is a broader issue that the judiciary ought to speak to.

Mr. CRAIG. Oh, I disagree totally.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me respond. When the Senator says we don't reach the Kelo decision, we reach a portion of the Kelo decision that is now most frequently impacting farms and ranches, and that is open space for open space. Municipalities and counties and in one instance, as I cited, a State, prior to Kelo, were not using these powers of eminent domain to acquire open space. They were going out and buying it in the market and competing for it. Now they are. So Kelo, in fact, is being used for this purpose. That is why we are addressing this.

Mr. CRAIG. If it were open and currently operating farmland and/or pasture land.

Mr. CRAIG. I know what your point is; I know we should be speaking through the Chair for that purpose. In my opinion, it is a broadening of the definition of public use in a post-Kelo environment that has put America's agricultural land at risk in a greater way than ever before. That is why this amendment is brought to the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. For agricultural purposes, and they did that for open space purposes, there would obviously, if this were law today, be a great debate in that community. That community would say, you cannot use this power and put our educational monies at risk. We say, yes, Government monies, Federal Government monies. So it would clearly have a dampening effect. You and I both know, because we have been at those different levels of government, that there are thresholds by which a planning and zoning entity of a county or a municipality can and cannot operate. Would it have a chilling effect? Yes. It would stop them from doing that. That is the intent. Would it put the educational money in jeopardy? No, it wouldn't because they wouldn't put it in jeopardy. You can use scare tactics, you can create, if you will, stalking kinds of arguments. But you and I both know, in practicality, they are not going to put those other values at risk. Sewage and water money and all of the kinds of other things that you and I work hard to get for our communities--that is not going to be put at risk because what is going to happen is they are going to quit using the Kelo decision. They are going to quit using eminent domain in its broadest sense until this Congress gets back in the business of shaping it again. That is why we are doing what we are doing here.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator knows as well as I do that, with wetlands, with endangered species, you name it, the Federal Government, by law, by statute, by regulation, by Clean Water Act, does a lot of things. It is hard to deny that we do because local entities operate under those laws. We are simply asking local entities, in their exercise of eminent domain, to operate within the law. This amendment, broadly supported by American agriculture for fear of taking of their land, and by the livestock industry, and by the Public Land Council and others, says: No, don't do that. You can point out, if you will, those kinds of arguments. But they are hollow in the sense that we constantly do that, and we have done that. Local governments operate under both local jurisdiction, local law, State and Federal law. So I do not see that as a problem. It can be argued, but it is not precedent setting in any sense of the word.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. I will not disagree with the Senator. I believe the taking of a person's wealth--and you and I in farm and ranch company know the assets of a farmer and rancher are tied in the land. It is their bank. It is their savings. It is their retirement. Some even like to pass it down generationally. To have a municipality flex a new muscle that grew out of a decision at the Supreme Court level because of an entity in Connecticut using it is ominous and needs to have powerful teeth in it to say to that local municipality or county: Thou shalt not, for these very narrow purposes, use eminent domain. I am saying you and I come from farm country. We know how valuable that land is. It is that farmer's or that rancher's savings. It is their retirement, should they choose to sell it, and they can sell it to the city for a park if they want to. But for a county or city to step in and take the land when you want to hand it to your daughter or your son or your grandson, generationally, to pass it down through for agricultural purposes--there ought to be teeth, very powerful teeth. I think counties and cities ought not be allowed to do it, period.

Mr. CRAIG. I have under the Constitution for ``the defined public good,'' and the defined public good was very clear, and we defined it in statute.

Mr. CRAIG. But they have not--excuse me. Senator?

Mr. CRAIG. Right in the middle of Gettysburg is a private operating farm today. The reason it is there is because they would not allow it to be condemned, and they did not meet the threshold price of a willing seller, willing buyer. The State of Pennsylvania, for rights-of-ways of road, but other than that in almost every instance in my knowledge as it relates to Gettysburg, bought it, acquired it, and they used Federal money to get it and they used the Federal Park Service and a variety of other tools. No, there is something new happening out there in a post-Kelo environment. You need to talk to your Farm Bureau in your State, and others, and your cattlemen and other farm organizations. Something new is happening in farmland, especially those lands adjacent to rapidly expanding urban environments. It is happening in a post-Kelo environment. That is why we are addressing it today on the Senate floor.

Mr. CRAIG. We don't speak to that. We speak to the issue at hand today: taking private farmland in municipalities and urban areas, counties and States, for the purpose of open land, and that is a post- Kelo phenomenon.

Mr. CRAIG. They did use some, yes, I don't deny that.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, we have not yet a time limit. I have expressed the will and concern of those who are cosponsors of the amendment. I put into the record the expression of our largest national farm organization that sees the threat as clearly as I do, maybe less clear than the chairman sees it because there is a pattern rapidly growing out there in a post-Kelo environment--open space taken for open space purposes. They are taking it from the private landowner. We think there ought to be strong teeth here. With that, I retain the remainder of my time. Others are here to debate the issue.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for that?

Mr. CRAIG. It is important to state for the record this amendment touches none of the standard uses of eminent domain and historic uses, and I said so and all the other Senators speaking to it said so. Rights-of-ways--this is open space land only. It is very clear, it is very targeted. It does not touch any other area of historic use of eminent domain. OK?

Mr. CRAIG. And a lot of people had their land acquired and purchased; eminent domain was used.

Mr. CRAIG. I think the Record is replete now with the fact that there has been an acceleration of counties and cities using it post-Kelo.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, fellow Senators, this is a fundamental private property rights vote. This is what is happening across America. This is what is happening across America in a post-Kelo decision. Counties and cities are oftentimes reaching out into farm country, condemning land, and holding it as open space when it is already open space, and this amendment speaks to that. Sandra Day O'Connor, in her dissent against Kelo v. New London, said this: The fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The American Farm Bureau, the American National Cattleman's and Beef Growers, and the National Public Lands Council support this amendment. If the Judiciary Committee had responded, and I hoped they would have, we would have a much broader definition as it relates to Kelo and as it relates to the right for eminent domain. Clearly, the public good is not damaged because entities still have the right for the public good, and that has always been the purpose of eminent domain. But simply to acquire property through condemnation when it is open space, to hold it as open space and to deny the private property owner his or her rights is fundamentally wrong under our Constitution. I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is rare that I disagree with my friend from Tennessee, especially on energy issues. We are very much in concert on how we not only deal with climate change, in many instances, but how we build a full energy portfolio for our country that makes us increasingly independent of foreign nations and oil-producing nations. One of the ways to do it, in my opinion, is to promote all sources of energy. While there are wind turbines going up in Idaho and in locations that I don't necessarily care for, I have very much supported wind, I will continue to support wind, and I support small wind. I say that in respect to the provision within the bill and in opposition to what the Senator from Tennessee is trying to do. Not only is it important that we produce as much as we possibly can because, clearly, our Nation is rapidly growing in deficit as it relates to energy production in nearly all segments. I agree you don't produce electricity when the wind doesn't blow; but when it does, you do. I will give you an example of a small company in Idaho that a few years ago, with little Federal assistance, built an obscure building out on the high deserts of Idaho, tapped underground water and brought in some electrolysis equipment, put up small wind turbines, exactly the kind the Senator from Tennessee is talking about. Those turbines produce 25 percent of their electrical needs. When you add that 25 percent wind turbine capability to their online use of electricity, they produce hydrogen in a profitable way that users of hydrogen in the Boise Valley are no longer trucking it in from Seattle, WA. They simply pull their truck out to the hydrogen facility and leave it there to be filled by this small hydrogen-producing company that uses electrolysis machines that are literally off the shelf, that are already being made and built into small business America. What made the difference for that company, what made it profitable, was to gain 25 percent of its energy base from wind, with the small turbine he is talking about. If you don't want a wind turbine in your front yard in an urban area, planning and zoning will take care of that. That is a local decision to be made. If you don't want them in certain places in your State, then whether it is county planning and zoning or municipal planning and zoning, that, too, can take care of it. America is rapidly adjusting to where the wind isn't and where the wind is. Wind isn't everywhere, but in certain segments of the Midwest, upper Midwest, and the West there are wind troughs, if you will, where the wind blows in a sustained way to make wind turbine generation profitable, adding to our overall energy base. I hope we will oppose the Alexander amendment. Along with many others, I have changed my mind over the years in rapidly encouraging all kinds of clean energy production. Wind certainly is clean, hydro is clean, and photovoltaic is clean. We need all of the rest, but we need to get increasingly a cleaner energy portfolio. Wind assists us in doing that. It is not the cure-all. And I agree with the Senator from Tennessee that nuclear, without question, is the base-loading generation capability that is clean, that is in our current technology base that, thank goodness, America has awakened to and we are beginning to see that happening. We are seeing the licensing of new nuclear reactors and we will be able, within the decade, to see multiple reactors coming on line to produce large volumes of energy. But there is no doubt that conservation, supplementation by wind, and all other sources remain important pieces of that total package. I oppose the Alexander amendment. I hope we can support small wind development along with large wind development. Is it pricey? Yes, it is; it is not inexpensive. I believe right now we are spending upward of a billion dollars a day offshore to foreign nations to buy their oil. The more money we can keep onshore for America, American enterprises, and the consumer, we ought to be doing. This is one way to do it.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Texas for their leadership. With that leadership comes a very clear voice about the problems this current Congress is facing. They are problems that are historic in character. I was once in the majority. It was the minority who said: We can do better and, therefore, we should run the Congress. In the last election, the American people listened and they changed the Congress. While I was chairing the Veterans' Affairs Committee at that time, we lost the Congress--we, the Republicans--by a reality of dropping to 32 percent in the minds of Americans as to an effective and responsible Congress. The minority played on that. They became the majority. They took over the leadership. They made a great deal of promises. Here we are in the eleventh and a half hour headed toward the twelfth hour of this session of Congress. They have not accomplished it. They have dropped below 11 percent in favorable rating among the American people. The American people do want to see us get along. At the same time, they want their Government to function in a timely and responsible way. That is exactly what this Congress has failed to do. I come to the floor to speak about two issues specifically. The assistant majority leader came to the floor earlier today and asked unanimous consent that S. 1233 and S. 1315 be allowed to come to the floor under unanimous consent or to come to the floor with debate and final passage. The reason he had to do that was before the Thanksgiving recess, I came to the floor and objected to the movement of those bills. The Senator from Oklahoma also now objects to the movement of those bills. I think it is very important that not only does the record bear why we objected but the American people clearly understand why we are objecting, because these are veterans bills. These are bills that deal with critical needs of America's veterans. I was once chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I am not going to suggest that I need to add credentials to my record as supporting America's veterans. My responsibility is to make sure the services to our veterans get delivered in a responsible and timely way, that the truly needy service-connected and poor veteran gets served, and that the needs of those coming in out of Afghanistan and Iraq, who then become veterans out of our active service, are met in an immediate way. That is the responsibility of this Congress. It is not to keep adding and adding and adding new programs that may or may not be necessary and adding and adding and adding billions of dollars that anyone in service to veterans can say is at best questionable. It is for those reasons that I objected to those bills. Now, let me break down why because there are some very real issues here. S. 1233 is an important piece of legislation that a majority of those of us who supported the legislation to begin with agreed to. It is called the Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act of 2007. Any bill with that title would capture your imagination. One of the great concerns we have today is the traumatic brain injuries our men and women in service are coming out of Iraq with, especially because of the types of bombs that are being used over there. Oftentimes, this kind of injury does not show up in a veteran until he or she becomes a veteran. If you look down through the priorities of that bill, you look at increased veterans' travel benefits--yes, rural veterans coming to veterans centers to be served; a major medical facilities project; adding to the expanded services of veterans health care; professional scholarship programs; extended time for preferred care; help for low- income veterans; traumatic brain injury program enhancement; assisted- living pilot program enhancement--all of those very valuable and very meaningful, strongly supported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee and strongly supported by this Senate. But what happened at the last minute was that a Senator on the other side added a new program. They said: We are going to allow Priority 8 veterans to become eligible for the full service of health care under the veterans health care system. What is a Priority 8 veteran? A Priority 8 veteran is one who has no service-connected disability or injury or health care concern. Did they serve? Yes, they served. Did they sustain any injury or physical needs as a result of their service? No. Are they at the poverty level or below? No. They are above it. And in most instances--in fact, in a high percentage of them--through their own employment, they have health care. So for a good number of years, because of costs, we who watch the veterans issues and Presidents and Secretaries of the VA have said we will not serve them. They will not be eligible for the full benefits. This President, President Bush, said: I will make them eligible, but they need to pay a small fee, a couple hundred bucks a year, to have access to the greatest health care program in the world. The minority at that time, the Democrats, said: No. They get it free of charge or they don't get it. Well, all of a sudden into this very valuable bill they parachuted Priority 8 veterans. What does that do? Well, if you go talk to the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration, they are going to tell you that it might cause a substantial problem. Why? Because all of a sudden in this health care system there could be 1.3 million more Americans eligible for health care--not planned for, not anticipated, not budgeted for, but parachuted in, I have to believe all in the name of trying to show a concern for veterans and to demonstrate that maybe we are a little more sensitive than the other side. What does that mean? Well, it also means the potential of between $1.2 billion more expended in 2008 and up to $8.8 billion more by 2012. Did they fund it? No. Have they stuck it in the bill? Yes. Are they trying to create a priority? Yes. Are they trying to create a new expenditure? Yes. And I said: No. Let's serve our poor and our needy and our disabled first and our traumatically brain injured and our post-traumatic stress syndrome veterans. Let's serve them now. Let's put money into the bill to do that. So the Senator from Texas talked about the VA-MILCON bill that is right at the desk right now, sent out by the ranking minority member of the VA-MILCON Subcommittee, on which I serve, of Appropriations, Senator Hutchison. We are trying to get a vote on it. That bill--that bill alone--has nearly $8 billion worth of new spending in it for veterans. That is a near 17.5- to 18-percent increase over last year. I believe it can be said, other than defense, to be the largest increase in a budget of all of Government for this year. But the money I am talking about, the new money for Priority 8, is not even in that one. All of this new money for veterans needs that is in the bill that we are being told cannot be passed, that we keep trying to get a vote on, does not even include the $1.5 billion to $8 billion necessary to fund this new program for veterans who are not needy, who are not service connected, and who have not been eligible for a good number of years. That is why we are saying no. You take Priority 8 out of this, and the Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act, S. 1233, could pass, and it would pass on a voice vote because the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--have always supported our veterans. But we will not nor will I allow us to get caught in the game of first you argue on the other side that we have a war nobody likes and a President who is not managing it well, and then on the other side you are saying we are not taking care of our veterans. I reject that, and I reject it totally for these reasons. While I was chair and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and throughout the Bush administration, we have increased the funding for veterans on an annualized basis anywhere from 10 to 12 percent. When I talk about the appropriations bill that is at the desk for veterans being a historically large increase, well, the one the year before was a historically large increase. We have never ducked our responsibility to veterans. But we must prioritize, and we must focus on the truly needy, and we must focus on those who are coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan and traumatic brain injury and all of those who continue to suffer today. That is the first bill, and it will continue to be objected to until they take out those kinds of add-ons. Let's talk about the second bill. The second bill is S. 1315. Now, that is an interesting bill because if you look at it on its face value, you say: Yes, that makes some sense. We are going to give a veterans' benefit enhancement to a certain class of veteran. Let me tell you who that veteran is. The bill includes roughly $900 million in new entitlement spending on an array of veterans' benefits, but what is interesting is, it is moving money away from poor, elderly, disabled and wartime U.S. veterans. It is taking effectively $2,000 annually from our veterans and moving it over to a veteran who does not even live in the United States and is not a citizen of the United States--a Filipino veteran.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Why I object to this--and I call this bill the ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill--is quite simple. If any of you have watched the Ken Burns PBS series ``The War,'' there is one whole segment of that about the war in the Philippines and the Filipinos who came forward to fight with Americans and even serve in American uniforms in defense of their land and ours during World War II. They did not become American citizens. They were Filipinos, and they have always received benefits. But this bill now reaches in and takes money away from our veterans, our poor veterans, because of a court case and is giving it to them. Here is my problem. First of all, they do not live in this country, and they are not U.S. citizens. They are currently receiving benefits. But for the average U.S. veteran, their benefits, right now under law, cannot exceed $10,929 a year. That is roughly 24 percent of the average U.S. household income. But this benefit which is in this bill gives to a veteran--a non-U.S. citizen, living in the Philippines--100 percent of the average household income in the Philippines. They are taking that money away from our veterans to do it. That is the ``Robin Hood in reverse'' effect. At least Robin Hood, when he took money, left it in Nottingham. He spread it out amongst his own. Here we are taking money from our own and sending it all the way to the Philippines. Now, let me say, and let me be very clear, Americans have treated Filipino veterans fairly. After the war, the United States provided $620 million--or $6.7 billion in today's dollars--to repair the Philippines. The United States provided $22.5 million--$196 million in today's dollars--for equipment and construction. We have a hospital in the Philippines, and Filipino veterans legally residing in the United States--in the United States--are fully eligible for all VA veterans' benefits based on their level of service. Survivors of Filipino veterans who died as a result of their service are eligible for educational assistance and all kinds of programs. That is why I object. First of all, because we are taking money away from ours, but also because we have been more than generous since that war ended to our comrades, the Filipinos, who fought side by side with American men and women, who were in the Philippines at the time, after we were able to reclaim the Philippine Islands. So we have done wonderfully by them, and we have been very supportive of providing them with programs. Remember, the average U.S. veterans' benefit--24 percent of U.S. average household income--is limited. Yet we are taking that money away from them now, giving it to Filipino veterans who are non-U.S. citizens, and increasing their benefit to over 100 percent of the average household income in the Philippines. U.S. dollars spent in the Philippines at that amount lifts--there is no question about it--lifts that Filipino dramatically. The question is, Is it fair? Is it equitable? My answer is, It is not. I offered to say, yes, we can bump them a little bit, but let's take the rest of this money and put it into educational benefits for our veterans coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer in the committee was no. So that is why these bills are in trouble on the floor. They have loaded them up. They are too heavy. The tires are blowing out from under the trucks of these bills simply because too much is too much. In the instance of this, Disabled American Veterans--that great organization which is a loud spokesperson for our veterans--is saying: Whoa, wait a moment here. Enough is enough, and this is too much. They themselves oppose this legislation as it is currently written. So here we have a funding bill on the floor with a 17.5- to 18- percent increase over last year's funding for veterans, and we are not allowed to vote on it. We have funding at the highest level ever for America's veterans, as we should and as we must, but these bills take us well beyond it in an unfunded environment or in one instance reaching in the pocket of our poor and disabled veteran and taking that money out and putting it into the pocket of a veteran living in the Philippines, who never became an American citizen, and who never came to this country, who has chosen to stay in his homeland. We now give them benefits, but this is a benefit well beyond what is even currently being offered to our own. Those are the fundamental reasons why we have objected. I was pleased when the Senator from Texas said to the Senator from Illinois, the assistant majority leader: No. Yes, we will object, and we are not embarrassed about doing it, because there have to be priorities to our funding, especially at a time when the VA budget that is at the desk is the largest increase of a veterans' budget, to my knowledge, ever. We are proud of that, but there is a point when enough is, in fact, enough. I yield the floor.