A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the management of health care services for veterans to place certain low-income veterans in a higher health-care priority category.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held.
June 22, 2004
View full timeline
Introduced in Senate
May 7, 2003
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5872-5873)
May 7, 2003
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5873)
May 7, 2003
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S14393)
November 11, 2003
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held.
June 22, 2004
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about S. 1014 on the floor
JB
OGH
RFBJSC
FRL+17
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about S. 1014 on the floor
Mr. President, our Nation's States and health safety net are simultaneously facing a crisis. According to State budget officers, the states are facing a nearly $30 billion budget shortfall this year…
Mr. President, our Nation's States and health safety net are simultaneously facing a crisis. According to State budget officers, the states are facing a nearly $30 billion budget shortfall this year and an $80 billion gap in fiscal year 2004 due to the economic recession. At the same time, it is estimated that the number of uninsured increased from 41 to 45 million this past year. And, due to the State budget shortfalls, the numbers of uninsured may increase even further.
In fact, the lead paragraph in the New York Times in an article entitled ``Cutbacks Imperil Health Coverage for States' Poor'' on April 28, 2003, reads, ``Millions of low-income Americans face the loss of health insurance or sharp cuts in benefits, like coverage for prescription drugs and dental care, under proposals now moving through state legislatures around the country.''
The article continues, ``State officials and health policy experts say the cuts will increase the number of uninsured, threaten recent progress in covering children and impose severe strains on hospitals, doctors and nursing homes.''
As a result, I believe the Federal Government should take immediate steps to fundamentally reassert and reassert its role in helping the States with this fiscal crisis and rising Medicaid costs, lowering the number of uninsured, and finally, confronting infant and maternal mortality and morbidity statistics that are unworthy of our great Nation.
To address these issues, today and tomorrow, I will be introducing three relevant bills. The first addresses the fiscal crisis confronting States and the Medicaid program entitled ``Strengthening Our States,'' or the ``SOS Act.''
The second addresses our Nation's long-standing and growing crisis of the uninsured that is entitled the ``Health Coverage, Affordability, Responsibility, and Equity Act'' or the ``Health CARE Act.''
The final bill takes on our Nation's high infant and mortality rates and is called the ``Start Healthy, Stay Health Act.''
First things first. In any campaign--whether in sports, business, or politics--you have to have both offensive and defensive strategies. In trying to reduce the number of uninsured in our country, we must first, as an emergency room doctor would, stop the bleeding. Therefore, our first priority should be to support and strengthen the Medicaid program.
Unfortunately, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated in March that as many as 1.7 million Americans could lose coverage altogether under proposals advanced by governors or adopted by State legislative committees this year.
Therefore, I am introducing today with Senators Corzine, Clinton, Kerry, Lautenberg, Dayton, and Johnson legislation entitled the ``Strengthening Our States Act of 2003.'' This bill is a companion bill to that being introduced by Representative Dingell, Brown of Ohio, Waxman, and others and is aimed at improving Medicaid and providing support to States to enhance their ability to provide coverage to their uninsured residents in these difficult times.
The SOS Act uses a combination of approaches which: first, provide additional Federal fiscal relief to States; second, provide additional flexibility to States in administering and improving the Medicaid program; and third, provide incentives and assistance to stave off cuts to existing coverage, and facilitate coverage expansions in the future.
The legislation will simplify Medicaid and enable States to strengthen the program and stands in sharp contrast to the President's proposal to convert Medicaid into a block grant that would erode health insurance coverage.
In fact, the Administration's prescription is the wrong medicine for the wrong ailment. The Federal Government should be stepping up its commitment to seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income children rather than stepping away and leaving States holding the bag.
First and foremost, our legislation acknowledges and reflects on the important role that Medicaid plays in our entire health care system. As Diane Rowland and Jim Tallon of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured have noted: ``. . . it is hard to envision our health system and society without a program like Medicaid. Medicaid is the glue that helps hold our health system together and takes on the highest-risk, sickest, and most expensive populations from private insurance and Medicare. For low-income Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid picks
up Medicare premiums and some cost sharing as well as filling the gaps in coverage for long-term care services, prescription drugs, and vision and dental care.''
Medicaid addresses the failure of the marketplace to deliver affordable health coverage to our Nation's most fragile and vulnerable citizens. However, there is no reason why it should also have to play the role of picking up the slack of the Medicare program. A central tenet of our SOS proposal is for the Federal Government to begin taking the steps to assume 100 percent of the costs associated with care and services in Medicaid for Medicare beneficiaries, also known as dual eligibles.
This, I would add, is in keeping with long-standing policy of the National Governors' Association, or NGA, and is in sharp contrast to the Administration's proposal to maintain the current Medicaid financing system for mandatory populations and services while block granting care of optional populations and services to States. Who are these optional populations? They are largely the elderly and people with disabilities, many of whom are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.
According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 83 percent of all Medicaid spending on the elderly is for either optional populations or services, such as prescription drugs and long-term care. In fact, according to Cindy Mann of Georgetown University and a former Medicaid director under the Clinton Administration, an estimated 35 percent of all State Medicaid costs are for so-called ``dual eligibles.''
Therefore, rather than stepping up to the plate, the Administration is instead stepping away from its commitment to the elderly and disabled, which should be our responsibility at the Federal level, by moving these groups and their health care services into a block grant. Groups representing the elderly and disabled communities have already spoken out against this.
As AARP Executive Director and CEO Bill Novelli says, ``This [Administration's block grant] proposal handcuffs states because it leaves people more vulnerable in future years as States struggle to meet increased needs with decreased dollars.''
The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities adds, ``The Bush Administration proposal fails people with disabilities and dishonors the Nation's commitment to its residents--it is not in the national interest. . . . What the Medicaid program calls `optional' services are, in reality, mandatory disability services for the children and adults who need them. These services often are not only life-saving, but also the key to a positive quality of life--something everyone in our nation deserves.''
Again, the Federal Government should be stepping up its commitment to seniors and people with disabilities rather than stepping away, as the President's proposal does.
With respect to the fiscal crisis facing states, the Administration has long opposed fiscal relief to States as part of its economic stimulus package. Instead, the Administration points out that its Medicaid block grant proposal provides more funding up front to States, in the amount of $3.5 billion over one year and $12.7 billion over the first seven years to help States. But the proposal has strong elements of a typical bait and switch by yanking every dime of that money away starting in 2011. Secretary Thompson noted at the press conference that he would not be around at the time of the $12.7 billion in reductions eight years from now and the plan clearly counts on the fact that most of this crop of governors would not be either.
However, that is exactly when our Nation's baby boomers hit retirement age in rapidly increasing numbers and the long term care costs within Medicaid will significantly increase.
In sharp contrast, the SOS Act includes a temporary increase in the Federal matching assistance percentage, or FMAP, to state Medicaid programs in the amount of $15 billion and another $15 billion in additional aid to States--far more than the temporary $3 billion offered by the Administration.
Also, unlike a block grant, the current Medicaid matching rate is responsive to States in times of recessions by providing Federal matching funds to States for each additional person who becomes eligible for Medicaid. Moreover, our SOS Act recognizes the formula can be even more responsive by preserving coverage during difficult times and includes a General Accounting Office study of ways to make the formula more responsive to fiscal distress during either a national or State recession.
In addition, the Strengthening Our States Act would increase Federal payments for certain services critical for special populations or federally-imposed services. It would provide enhanced Federal funding for urban Indian health services, translation services, outstationed workers, and reimbursement to health providers for emergency services delivered undocumented individuals who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid. Again, the Administration's proposal simply block grants funding for these services and steps away from its Federal responsibility.
For example, services delivered to Native Americans by Indian Health Service providers and health organizations are reimbursed at 100 percent federal match currently in recognition of the Federal responsibility and role in delivering services to Native Americans apart from States. Under a block grant, the Federal match is eliminated and the Federal role in providing care to Native Americans is abandoned. This is contrary to longstanding Federal policy and its relationship with tribes and tribal organizations and to policy by the National Governors' Association.
And finally, with respect to giving States flexibility and assistance to expand upon existing coverage options, the Strengthening Our States Act is far better and responsive to states than a block grant. Block grants do not adjust for population changes, recessions, or efforts to expand coverage by States. At its unveiling, Secretary Thompson spoke about the added options the block grants offer States to expand coverage. However, it does so with no new funding. This offer of flexibility is, therefore, illusory.
In fact, because Federal funding is capped for optional opulations by the Administration's block grant, states cannot draw down additional Federal support when it chooses to expand coverage. Under current law and the SOS Act, they can. Some of the more ground-breaking efforts by states such as those by Vermont, Washington, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and even Wisconsin, would have likely never come to pass without that added Federal support.
Therefore, the SOS Act continues and expands upon that Federal support by giving States additional coverage options, such as to set uniform eligibility levels for families rather than covering parents and children separately. The SOS Act also would make States eligible for enhanced matching funds to cover low-income working parents under Medicaid.
States should also beware of the Administration's promise of 9 percent growth rates for the next 10 years. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed a budget that would have reduced Medicaid spending by $92 billion over 10 years. While that was rejected in conference, such efforts become much easier under the rubric of a block grant. Again, recent history contains many such promises and examples.
For example, as the NGA policy on the Social Service Block Grant notes, during passage of TANF, ``Congress and the Administration made a commitment to Governors to fund SSBG at $2.38 billion each year through fiscal year 2002, with the funding increasing to $2.8 billion in fiscal 2003 and each year thereafter.'' The reality is that funding has been reduced to $1.7 billion in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 65 percent below the promised funding levels.
There is an old saying, which goes, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' When members of Congress and future Administrations see 9 percent growth rates in these Medicaid block grants and have a particular tax cut, Medicare change, transportation program, or whatever they wish to fund, you can already hear them saying, ``What if we just reduce the growth rates to 8 percent or 7 percent or 6 percent or 5 percent. . . .'' Well, we all can see where this rapidly heads and we have all been fooled once before.
Some governors, including Secretary Thompson, seem to have a short memory on these matters. On April 14, 1997, 41 Governors, including Secretary Thompson, Bush Administration Cabinet Members Tom Ridge, and Christine Todd Whitman, wrote President Clinton, and said: ``We adamantly oppose a cap on federal Medicaid spending in any form. Unilateral caps in federal Medicaid spending will result in cost shifts to states, enabling the federal government to balance its budget at the expense of the states.''
What was true then remains true 6 years later.
Moreover, on behalf of the NGA, Governors Bob Miller of Nevada and Mike Leavitt testified before the Senate Finance Committee and made the following statement: ``. . . caps could result in states becoming solely responsible for unexpected program costs, such as a loss in a lawsuit on reimbursement rates or the development of expensive new therapies that drive up treatment costs beyond the federal allowable rate.
They added: ``. . . the cost shift resulting from a unilateral cap would present states with a number of bad alternatives. States essentially would have to choose between cutting back on payment rates to providers, eliminating optional benefits provided to recipients, ending coverage for optional beneficiaries, or coming up with additional state funds to absorb 100 percent of the cost of services.''
I do not see why this needs to be an all-or-nothing proposition. Why do we have to throw out the entire Medicaid financing structure, which benefits States, beneficiaries, and providers, in order to grant States additional flexibility to their programs?
In 1997, we rejected the all-or-nothing proposal and worked with the States and gave them a package of added flexibility, including the ability to enroll much of their Medicaid population in managed care without the need for a waiver.
Secretary Thompson talks a great deal about the flexibility the block grant offers and cites the need to allow States the ability to move people out of institutional settings into more appropriate home- and community-based settings and is right. Under the block grant, States are only granted additional flexibility to do so if they accept a block grant. In contrast, the SOS Act provides States an enhanced Federal matching rate to provide home- and community-based services.
However, rather than saying to States that they can only do so through the acceptance of a block grant, why can't we provide them this option without the imposition of a Federal limit on funding? Both states and beneficiary groups are asking for it and we can and should act.
It is on this point that I must add that the Medicaid program was not created for Federal officials or governors. We all clearly need to be reminded that there are other stakeholders in the Medicaid program, including the 43 million people served by the program.
As Alan Weil of the Urban institute and the former Medicaid director of the State of Colorado wrote in a recent article published in Health Affairs: ``If money is at the heart of debates over Medicaid, the millions of indigent people whose varied and complex medical needs are met by the program are its sole. The amount of human suffering the program alleviates is immense.''
As the Administration attempts to proceed on negotiations with the governors on a deal on block grants, let's not forget the children, mothers, seniors, and people with disabilities served by Medicaid. The SOS Act provides a far better alternative.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the introduction of S. 119, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003. I applaud Senators DeWine and Lindsey Graham for their longstanding and…
Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the introduction of S. 119, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003. I applaud Senators DeWine and Lindsey Graham for their longstanding and essential leadership on this issue in the Senate and the House. The importance of this issue is made tragically clear by the recent murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner.
In my home State of Utah, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant and thereby causes death or injury to the unborn child, the criminal faces the possibility of being prosecuted for having taken or injured that unborn life. Twenty-five additional States have similar laws on the books. Eleven of those States recognize the unborn child as a victim throughout the entire period of prenatal development. This is only proper and, it seems to me, only just.
But under existing Federal criminal statutes, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant and thereby causes death or injury to that unborn child, the criminal faces no consequences in our Federal criminal justice system for taking or injuring that innocent, unborn life. This is wrong and it is not justified.
This bill fixes the gap in Federal law by making it a separate Federal offense to kill or injure an unborn child during the commission of certain already-defined Federal crimes committed against the unborn child's mother. This bill does not usurp jurisdiction over States that do not currently have laws that protect unborn victims of violence. It only applies to Federal crimes.
I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose this bill. The only reason for opposition that I can suppose is that some in the pro-choice movement believe that our bill draws attention to the effort to dehumanize, desensitize, and depersonalize the unborn child. Given the political and legal arguments of abortion supporters, it may be difficult for them to concede an unborn child is human and therefore a victim of a crime.
Nevertheless, it is not our intention in this bill to turn the debate into a battle on abortion. In no way does this bill interfere with the ability of a woman to have an abortion under current law. The bill specifically does not apply to a woman who engages in any action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Therefore, it would not apply to any abortion to which a woman consents. In my view, we should all be able to support this modest effort to protect mothers and their unborn children.
Some will try to claim that this bill weakens domestic violence laws by diverting attention to the unborn. That is simply not true. I am a strong supporter of domestic violence laws in this Nation. I believe domestic violence is an evil plague that needs to be stopped.
For nearly 15 years, I have worked hard on the issue of domestic violence and violence against women. And when I stand here today before the entire United States Senate and offer my support for a bill, I certainly make sure that bill does not diminish in any way our capacity and will to curb domestic violence and protect women. This bill, in fact, strengthens domestic violence laws by making it a separate criminal offense under our Federal legal system to cause death or injury to an unborn child as a result of violence.
For several months now, the Nation has watched in the media the unfortunate and tragic story of Laci Peterson. She was an expectant mother from California who mysteriously vanished shortly before Christmas. In mid-April, her decomposing body and the body of her unborn child washed ashore at a San Francisco-area beach.
The Nation has witnessed a community in mourning over the disappearance and death of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner. Laci Peterson was the truly tragic victim of violence that not only took her life but also the innocent life of her unborn son. This is a truly devastating story, especially for those who knew and loved Laci Peterson and eagerly awaited the birth of her son Conner. I want to do what I can to see that justice is served if there is ever a case similar to this that comes before our Federal judicial system, and that is why I support this measure.
A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll conducted on April 22 and 23 indicated that of the 900 registered voters polled, 49 percent considered themselves pro-choice while only 41 percent said they are pro-life. But what is even more interesting is this same poll showed 84 percent believed Scott Peterson should be charged with two counts of homicide for murdering his wife and unborn son. California law permits criminals to be charged with murder for killing an unborn child when it has developed past the embryonic stage.
Now remember, the majority of those polled in this survey said they were pro-choice. But the tragic murder of an innocent, unborn child is shocking and twisted enough that, regardless of any stance on abortion, the vast majority of Americans strongly believe an unborn life taken in murder should result in murder charges brought against the perpetrator. It is only fair and just to ask for our Federal judicial system to incorporate such a strong desire of the American people.
Some will try to confuse the issue here. Let me be clear, the debate on this bill is not about abortion--far from it. It does not affect current law regarding abortion. This bill does not in any way interfere with or weaken domestic violence laws or laws intended to prevent violence against women. This is a simple remedy to a terrible crime. I hope that Congress will seriously consider this bill and promptly pass it.
Mr. President, I rise to address the serious matter of the erosion of pay for the Federal judiciary. There is consensus among all who have seriously looked at this issue that the independence and quality of the judiciary is at risk because of the inadequacy of the current salaries of Federal judges.
The American Bar Association and Federal Bar Association issued a report on this issue in February 2001. That report documented the factors impacting erosion of judicial pay and the detrimental effects on the judiciary. Because of the withholding of cost-of-living adjustments, the impact of inflation, and the insufficient attempts to stabilize judicial pay, Federal judges are increasingly choosing to resign or retire. Furthermore, the report noted, the prospect of a declining salary in real terms also discourages potential candidates from seeking appointments to the bench.
In his 2002 Year-End Report, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist identified the need to increase judicial pay as the most pressing issue facing the judiciary. He highlighted his concern that salaries of Federal judges have not kept pace with those of lawyers in private firms and in business. He observed, ``Inadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure. That low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting judicial performance--instead of serving for life, those judges would serve the terms their finances would allow, and they would worry about what awaits them when they return to the private sector.''
In the Report of the National Commission on the Public Service, issued January 2003, the Chairman of the Commission, Paul Volker, made this observation: ``Judicial salaries are the most egregious example of the failure of Federal compensation policies. Federal judicial salaries have lost 24 percent of their purchasing power since 1969, which is arguably inconsistent with the Constitutional provision that judicial salaries may not be reduced by Congress. . . . The lag in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large.'' Accordingly, the Commission made the recommendation that Congress should grant an immediate and significant increase in judicial, executive and legislative salaries to ensure a reasonable relationship to other professional opportunities.
Responding to this report and recommendation, the Judicial Conference, at its recent meeting, unanimously adopted a Resolution which contains in part the following:
``Whereas, the President at the request of the Chief
Justice has agreed to support legislation that would increase
judicial salaries by 16.5 percent, which will yield an
average of $24,948, across all levels of judicial offices;
Now therefore, the Committee on the Judicial Branch
recommends that the Judicial Conference endorse and
vigorously seek legislation that would increase judicial
salaries by 16.5 percent, which will yield an average of
$24,948, across all levels of judicial offices.''
Today, Senator Leahy and I, joined by Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, and Senator Chambliss are introducing a bill that will restore the lost cost-of-living adjustments which were denied to the judiciary and will help reduce the gap between Federal judicial salaries and private sector salaries which still remains.
This legislation enacts a 16.5 percent increase in the salaries of the justices of the Supreme Court and other Federal judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution, an average salary increase of about $25,000. It does so without altering the respective provisions of title 28, United States Code, which defines their salary rates. The pay adjustment would be effective with the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2004, and would be applied before any annual salary adjustment authorized under the Employment Cost Index approval mechanism provided by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 461.
The judicial officers enumerated in this bill to receive the 16.5 percent pay increase are the Chief Justice of the United States, associate justices of the Supreme Court, United States circuit judges, United States district judges, and judges of the United States Court of International Trade. In addition, this legislation would have the effect of increasing salaries of the judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges and full-time United States magistrate judges whose salaries are related to the rate of pay of United States district judges.
This legislation will do much to improve retention on the bench and will aid in the recruitment of outstanding judicial candidates. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Leahy, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Chambliss and me in this bipartisan measure.
I ask unanimous consent that the Judicial Conference Resolution, as well as the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, on Veterans Day, it is fitting to pause, remember and recognize the contributions of those who have defended America throughout our history. Today, I would also like to recognize a man…
Mr. President, on Veterans Day, it is fitting to pause, remember and recognize the contributions of those who have defended America throughout our history. Today, I would also like to recognize a man who risked his life to save his fellow marines in the horrific World War II battle for Iwo Jima.
Historian David Kennedy, in his book ``Freedom from Fear,'' describes the battle of Iwo Jima:
The twenty-one-thousand-man Japanese garrison had
honeycombed Iwo's basaltic ridges and Suribachi's ashen
flanks with reinforced concrete-and-steel bunkers and stuffed
them with artillery, antiaircraft guns, mortars, and machine
guns. They were so well and deeply entrenched that seventy-
two days of aerial bombing and three days of naval shelling
barely scratched them. At first light on February 19 two
divisions of marines, each man carrying up to a hundred
pounds of gear, stepped from their amphtracs onto Iwo's
beaches and sank to their boot-tops in the powdery mixture of
sand and volcanic ash. Vehicles, including tanks and half-
tracks, soon bogged down in the quicksand-like topping of
pumice and cinder that blanketed the island. From the
Japanese bunkers and pillboxes a hellish rain of shells and
bullets pelted the beaches, where the marines seemed to be
moving in slow motion through the sucking sand . . .
The battle ground on . . . with unmatched barbarity.
Japanese soldiers stubbornly refused to surrender. When the
fighting ended at last in late March, only a few hundred
Japanese, mostly wounded, had allowed themselves to be taken
prisoner.
From February 19 to March 25, 1945, 6,140 Marine and Navy soldiers were killed on Iwo Jima and 17,372 were wounded. Nearly two of three soldiers who fought on Iwo Jima were killed or wounded. Twenty-two Marines and four corpsmen received medals of honor.
During those terrible days of February and March of 1945, George E. Wahlen was a medical corpsman. James Bradley, in the book, Flags of our Fathers said this:
. . . In the European theater, my dad (a navy corpsman)
would have worn a red cross on his helmet and expected the
Germans to spare him as a noncombatant. And he would have
been unarmed, according to the Geneva Convention. but the
Pacific theater was different. . . . The Japanese on Iwo Jima
had been trained to look for corpsmen by identifying their
telltale medical pouch--and shoot them on the spot. Without a
corpsman to save the wounded, the Japanese knew, their kill
ratio would be much higher . . .
Though seriously wounded three times in 26 days, corpsman George Whalen refused evacuation and repeatedly defined heavy mortar and rifle fire from the enemy to find and treat his wounded comrades. Disregarding his own safety, he continued to cross open terrain under fire to aid his friends, until he was so badly wounded, he could no longer walk. Even then, he carried on, crawling across the ground through the raging battle to administer aid to yet another fallen comrade. For his unselfish and steadfast courage, and for ``conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.'' George Wahlen was awarded the Medal of Honor, and is Utah's only living recipient of that rare recognition.
We are all familiar with the language of military honors, but, in these challenging times, where American soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines, once again are serving in foreign lands and showing the same gallant spirit of sacrifice and courage in the face of battle, we need to hear it again. I would like to quote from Mr. Wahlen's citation:
Painfully wounded . . . he remained on the battlefield,
advancing well forward of the front lines to aid a wounded
marine and carrying him back to safety despite a terrific
concentration of fire. Tireless in his ministrations, he
consistently disregarded all danger to attend his fighting
comrades as they fell under the devastating rain of shrapnel
and bullets. . . . When an adjacent platoon suffered heavy
casualties, he defied the continuous pounding of heavy
mortars and deadly fire of enemy rifles to care for the
wounded, working rapidly in an area swept by constant fire
and treating 14 casualties before returning to his own
platoon. Wounded again . . . he gallantly refused
evacuation, moving out with his company the following day in
a furious assault across 600 yards of open terrain and
repeatedly rendering medical aid while exposed to the
blasting fury of powerful Japanese guns. Stouthearted and
indomitable, he persevered in his determined efforts as
his unit waged fierce battle and, unable to walk after
sustaining a third agonizing wound, resolutely crawled 50
yards to administer first aid to still another fallen
fighter. By his dauntless fortitude and valor, Wahlen
served as a constant inspiration and contributed vitally
to the high morale of his company during critical phases
of this strategically important engagement. His heroic
spirit of self-sacrifice in the face of overwhelming enemy
fire upheld the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval
Service.
James Bradley, in an article in the Wall Street Journal on November 10, 2002, considered the phrase ``Uncommon Valor was a Common Virtue'' in his search to learn the story of his dad, and others at Iwo Jima. Mr. Bradley wrote:
Corpsman George Wahlen was injured in the eye and shoulder,
but patched himself up secretly so he would not be evacuated.
When an exploding shell shattered his ankle, leaving his foot
dangling and all but disconnected from the leg, he shot
himself with morphine, taped up his ankle, and crawled back
to the fight with one good eye, one good arm, and one good
leg. Corpsman Wahlen had to be dragged off the field of
battle. ``Why?'' I asked. He answered, ``I just did what
anyone else would have done in the situation.''
. . . I thought to myself, ``If uncommon valor was so
common on Iwo Jima, why can't I find the Rambos of my
imagination?'' All I could find were humble guys who insisted
they hadn't done much . . . But I realized then that what my
dad's life and words, and the words and lives of these other
heroes, were trying to tell me, was that it was all about
common virtue.
My dad and his comrades were men of common virtue before
Iwo Jima, on Iwo Jima, and after Iwo Jima. Their actions and
lives were consistent . . . I realized that the key to my
dad's life was the attitude of common virtue he practiced
throughout his days. . . . My dad, running through bullets on
Iwo Jima, doing his duty in the Pacific. My dad having the
patience to teach me, a young son, how to tie his shoes. My
dad, just lending a hand in his community. . . . And I am
confident that if my dad were here to read these words about
common virtue being the root of heroism, he would shake his
head in agreement and say: ``It's as simple as that.''
Mr. Wahlen has demonstrated common virtue throughout his life and continues to do so. He did not end his service on Iwo Jima. Following World War II, true to the code of what Tom Brokaw called ``the greatest generation,'' he went on to serve his country in two more wars and to dedicate countless volunteer hours in following years to the service of his fellow veterans.
It is to honor this fine and humble man, who would be the last to claim such an honor for himself, that I am proposing to change the name of the Department of Veterans Affairs' Medical Center in Salt Lake City, UT to the ``George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.'' Senator Hatch and I introduced this legislation, S. 1815, last week.
This is a proper and fitting thing to do, not only because of Mr. Wahlen's accomplishments and service, but also because he is beloved by his fellow veterans. This is made clear by the unanimous support I received in support of this change from all of the State commanders and directors of Utah's veterans' organizations and State and Federal agencies: the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the VA Regional Office, the Utah Division of Veterans Affairs, and the VA Medical Center itself.
When carrying the 2002 Olympic Torch George Wahlen said, ``It's an honor, but I feel like I'm representing all the veterans in the State of Utah.'' He has represented veterans so often over the last 30 years. In this circumstance, we honor George Wahlen, as a veteran, a Medal of Honor recipient, a man of both valor and virtue, and as a representative of all of the veterans who have served their country.
Many veterans who returned as heroes are often uncomfortable with the designation of heroes. James Bradley, in Flags of our Fathers, recounted a story where his third grade teacher referred to James's father as a hero and wanted him to come and speak to his
class. He recounts the exchange with his father:
``Jim, your teacher said something about heroes . . .''
I shifted expectantly in my chair, waiting to hear some
stories of valor. Instead he looked me directly in my nine-
year-old eyes, signaling that he'd like to embed an idea in
my brain for the rest of my life. He said ``I want you to
always remember something. The heroes of Iwo Jima are the
guys who didn't come back.''
Today, we remember those who came back and those who didn't--those who didn't come back from Iwo Jima, from Guadalcanal, from Normandy, from Vietnam, from Korea, from Afghanistan, from Iraq.
While words fail to make an adequate tribute to those who lost their lives and paid a price in sacrifice for what we enjoy today, I will borrow from what has already been written. In 1940, Winston Churchill spoke to the House of Commons in relation to the Battle of Britain. He said, ``Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.''
There are heroes that never came back. There are heroes that did. Let us not forget.
Mr. President, I rise to call attention to the importance of the Veterans Day commemoration ceremonies and private remembrances, both formal and informal, being observed today by Americans around the…
Mr. President, I rise to call attention to the importance of the Veterans Day commemoration ceremonies and private remembrances, both formal and informal, being observed today by Americans around the Nation and across the world.
Given the many demands on this body and the hectic pace of modern life, it is all too easy for the Senate, as well as for all Americans, to fail to give this day--Veterans' Day the attention it demands. It is all too easy to let the date on the calendar pass without stopping and reflecting.
But, as citizens, as well as public servants, we must never fail to commemorate, honor, and remember in our hearts our veterans and their sacrifices and what those sacrifices have meant to our country.
A mere once a year we are called to publicly applaud and honor the many Americans, living and deceased, men and women of every ethnic group and walk of life, who have given of themselves, their time, their youth, their sweat, and, all too frequently, their blood, and their lives. Their sacrifices have kept us free and enabled us to remain the last best hope of the world.
About this nation's revolution, Thomas Paine wrote:
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer
soldier and the sunshine patriot will shrink from the service
of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the
love and thanks of man and woman.
In observing Veterans Day today, we offer our love and thanks to those Americans, over the course of our history, who did not shrink from the service of their country.
Most came to military service willingly, even eagerly, many with good humor and high hopes, some more reluctantly, and more than a few who, frankly, would rather have been elsewhere.
I can remember myself some years ago, as a young marine humping an 81-millimeter mortar tube across the California desert, wishing very sincerely to be elsewhere at that moment.
What they all have in common, and what we all honor today, is that they did not shrink from the service to their country, and still don't.
As they did not shrink from service during World War II in the Pacific and in Europe, in long and bitter wars in Korea and Vietnam, in Lebanon and Grenada, in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and, today, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, on hundreds of ships in every ocean of the world; in Minot, ND; and in Fort Dix, NJ; on Diego Garcia and in Misawa, Japan; at Ft. Benning, GA; on Paris Island, SC; and at Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital here in Washington.
They responded to a sense of duty, obligation, and a desire to belong to or strive for something separate and apart from personal ambition.
They may not even see or clearly understand at the time their own motivations, but they do not shrink from service all the same, and our country is the better for it.
A simple choice on the face of it--the willingness to serve--but one that, given the unparalleled abundance of choices that Americans today enjoy--we must recognize, honor and support.
As we stop to honor our veterans, we must go beyond rhetorical support.
We must provide for those who have served the rest of us so well, and we need to do so in practical and concrete terms, for our debt to our veterans' demands that we respond to their needs and their concerns, and demands that we deliver the benefits they have earned through their service and sacrifice.
First, full accountability for all MIA/POW's, without exception. There is no higher obligation for a country than to keep faith with those of its fighting men and women who may still be in enemy hands. We must not turn away.
In this regard, I urge the administration and the Defense Department to continue their search for CAPT Michael Scott Speicher, United States Navy, whose family is from New Jersey and whose aircraft was shot down over Iraq in 1991.
Then-Commander Speicher was reported as the first American service member killed in action in Desert Storm. His status, however, was changed by the Department of Defense from killed in action to MIA and then, in 2002, to POW. More indications suggesting Captain Speicher may have survived his 1991 shoot-down came to light after our liberation of Iraq.
The Defense Department's search for him, with the urging of my Senate colleagues and me, must continue until Captain Speicher's fate is fully accounted for.
Turning to the VA health care system, tens of thousands of veterans now must wait six months and more for appointments. Some find they have to wait as long as one to two years to be seen.
This kind of delay and lack of access to healthcare is unacceptable and yet is all too common. It is also completely unnecessary. The difficulties faced by our veterans are caused by chronic underfunding of the VA health system.
The VA system relies on the annual appropriations process, a process which is contentious and unpredictable and which makes it all too tempting to slash current year funding regardless of how this affects our veterans.
This year, for example, veterans organizations estimate that the VA health system needs $1.8 billion more than the President requested.
As a result, veterans advocates have once again found themselves playing catch-up.
The solution is mandatory funding of VA health needs so that veteran's benefits are no longer subject to the politics of the annual appropriations process.
Without such a mechanism, the VA system will remain chronically underfunded, and veterans needing care will continue to have to wait disgracefully long periods of time.
I also wish to note that today I am introducing the Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act, to provide increased testing and care for veterans at risk of or infection with hepatitis C.
Most veterans who have hepatitis C don't even know it, and often don't get treatment until it's too late.
Yet despite recent advances in care, the VA still lacks a comprehensive approach to testing and treating veterans for the virus.
The legislation I am introducing would improve access to hepatitis C testing and treatment for all veterans, ensure that the VA spends all allocated hepatitis C funds on testing and treatment, and set new, national policies for hepatitis C care.
I have also introduced and will continue to push for a measure to lower the retirement age for reservists to 55.
This measure is a way to ensure fairer treatment for reservists in their career planning and to make a reserve career more attractive to military members who might otherwise opt out of further service.
We need to think about equity for reservists, and about the attractiveness of Reserve careers as our global strategy comes to rely ever more heavily on reservist citizen-soldiers.
We also owe our veterans full concurrent receipts.
There should be no conflict between a veteran's right to receive his or her retirement benefits and a disabled veteran's right to disability income. And yet, incredibly enough, disabled veterans continue to pay what is, in effect, a tax on their disability payments. It is time-- once and for all--to eliminate this tax.
Ensuring that all veterans have access to quality healthcare is a small repayment for the contributions veterans have made in service to this Nation.
Unfortunately, the current Veterans Administration healthcare funding formula--VERA--puts veterans in high-cost areas, such as New Jersey, at a severe disadvantage in getting adequate medical care.
Vets shouldn't be forced to wait months for an appointment at a veterans medical clinic or to shoulder excessive fees because of a quirk in the formula that funds VA health care.
That is why I introduced legislation to make VA healthcare funding fairer by accounting for the distinct financial challenges confronting veterans and healthcare providers in different parts of the country.
This legislation, S. 1014, would replace the national income threshold for classification as a low-income veteran--currently $24,000 for all parts of the country--with regional thresholds defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
This adjustment would help low-income veterans across the country afford quality health care and help ensure that Veterans Integrated Service Networks, VISN's, receive adequate funding to care for their distinct veteran populations.
In thinking about our veterans, we must also consider the brave men and women fighting for us now in Iraq and in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
As we honor their service, we must never forget what we owe them--now and when they return.
With so many Guard men and women and Reservists serving, it is critical that we extend to them the benefits they deserve.
One benefit for which we have had to fight is the extension of TRICARE coverage to all reservists. We have succeeded in getting this critical benefit for a year. We will, therefore, be revisiting this issue next year. I and like-minded colleagues remain advocates of extending such coverage to reservists.
As we asked our young citizens in the past, we are again today asking them to do extraordinary things, and we need to see that they have the proper care and assistance when they come home. There is no excuse for failing them.
We all remember that Veterans Day began as a commemoration of the Armistice which ended World War I, a catastrophic event which this body described as ``the most destructive, sanguinary and far reaching war in human annals'' to that point.
We pause and remember, and we again commit ourselves to honor and to stand by the veterans of the Great War and of all America's wars, past and present.
Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, COAST, Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and…
Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, COAST, Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast.
The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats not to our environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on tourism along our shore.
Until the Bush Administration came into office, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even a remote
possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior Appropriations acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990 under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas.
Given the long-standing consensus against drilling in these areas, I was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North- Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I believe that the RFP was not only inappropriate, but probably illegal, and I was pleased when at my urging, the Administration rescinded.
But the Administration is at it again in the energy bill now before the Senate. The bill contains provisions that direct the Department of Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. The bill would allow the use of seismic surveys, dart core sampling, and other exploration technologies, which could negatively impact coastal and marine areas.
These provisions run directly counter to language that Congress has included annually in appropriations bills to prevent leasing, pre- leasing, and related activities in most areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off the New Jersey coast.
In my view, it is time for Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti-Drilling Act. This bill would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Doing so would ensure the people of New Jersey and neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to change the way the Veterans' Administration defines low-income veterans by taking into account variations in the cost of living in different parts of the country. The Corzine-Clinton legislation would make the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation just that: Equitable.
More specifically, this bill would replace the national income threshold for consideration in Priority Group 5--currently $24,000 for all parts of the country--with regional thresholds defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This simple but far- reaching proposal would help low-income veterans across the country afford quality health care and ensure that Veterans Integrated Service Networks or VISNs receive adequate funding to care for their distinct veteran populations.
Our Nation's veterans have made great sacrifics in defense of American freedom and values, and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. The United States Congress must ensure that all American veterans--veterans who have sweated in the trenches to defend liberty-- have access to quality health care.
In 1997, Congress implemented the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system, or VERA, to distribute medical care funding provided by the VA. The funding formula was established to better take into account the costs associated with various veteran populations. Unfortunately, the VERA formula that was created fails to take into account regional differences in the cost of living, a significant metric in determining veteran healthcare costs. This oversight in the VERA formula dangerously shortchanges veterans living in regions with high costs of living and elevated healthcare expenses.
To allocate money to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks, VISNs, VERA divides veterans into eight priority groups. Veterans who have no service-connected disability and whose incomes fall below $24,000 are considered low income and placed in Priority Group 5, while veterans whose incomes exceed this national threshold and qualify for no other special priorities are placed in either Priority Group 7c or Priority Group 8. VERA only reimburses the treating Medical Care facility for the care that they provided to veterans in priority groups 1-5 and does not provide any Federal reimbursement for the care provided to priority group 7 and 8 veterans.
Using a national threshold for determining eligibility as a low- income veteran puts veterans living in high cost areas at a decided disadvantage. In New Jersey, HUD's fiscal year 2002 standards for classification as ``low-income'' exceed $24,000 per year in every single county. And some areas exceed the VA baseline by more than 50 percent. Similarly, HUD's ``low-income'' classification for New York City is set at $35,150, and for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, at $40,150.
As a result, regions that have a high cost of living, like VISN 3, which encompasses substantial portions of New Jersey and New York, tend to have a reduced population of Priority Group 5 veterans and an inflated population of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans.
The fundamental inequity of the VERA formula is apparent when you consider the VERA allocations do not take into account the number of veterans classified in Priority Groups 7c and 8. Because of the costs associated with these Priority Groups 7c and 8 veterans are not considered as part of the VERA allocation, and because high cost of living areas have large populations of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans, high cost regions must provide care to thousands of veterans without adequate funding.
This additional financial burden on VISNs with large populations of non-reimbursable veterans in Priority Group 7c and 8 has had a tremendous impact on VISN 3. Since FY 1996, VISN 3 has experienced a decline in revenue of 10 percent. As a result of the tremendous shortfall in the VISN 3 budget, the VA cannot move forward with plans to open clinics in various locations, including prospective clinics in Monmouth and Passaic Counties. Consequently, veterans in VISN 3 are forced to wait for unreasonably long periods to receive medical care and travel long distances to existing clinics, and those veterans who are able to access care are being treated in facilities operating under tremendous financial difficulty.
Furthermore, miscategorizing which vets quality as Priority Group 5 unjustifiably reduces access to medical care for thousands of veterans. Under existing rules, veterans placed in Priority and Groups 7c and 8 must provide a copayment to receive medical care at a VA medical facility; Veterans placed in Priority Group 5 receive medical care free of charge. Under the existing
framework, low-income vets in high cost areas are often inappropriately placed in Priority Groups 7c and 8, and are forced to provide a copayment.
Recent studies by both the RAND Institute and the General Accounting Office identify this flaw in the VERA formula and recommend a geographic means test like the one provided in our legislation to improve the allocation of resources under VERA. Such a test would ensure that the VERA formula allocation better reflects the true costs of VA healthcare in the various VISNs in the United States.
Our legislation would make a simple adjustment to the VERA formula to account for variations in the cost of living in different regions. The bill would help veterans in high cost areas afford VA health care and guarantee that VISNs across the country receive adequate compensation for the care they provide.
I hope my colleagues will join Senator Clinton and me in supporting this important bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Show 8 more
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for making the inquiry. The fact is I need about 10 minutes and the Senator from North Dakota needs 5 minutes. If that could be accommodated on an equal…
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for making the inquiry. The fact is I need about 10 minutes and the Senator from North Dakota needs 5 minutes. If that could be accommodated on an equal exchange basis, I suggest we ask unanimous consent to do so.
Fifteen.
Right. I appreciate the fact the Senator from Pennsylvania has other obligations, but this is Veterans Day. I want to talk about veterans. I think we have that particular obligation since we are here today and we are not in our home States, able to visit veterans, visit cemeteries, and talk to people about veterans.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.
Mr. President, I ask that I be reminded at the 9- minute mark, if I have gotten that far, please, that I have 1 minute remaining.
I was in Newark yesterday, at our cathedral there, attending the funeral of SGT Joel Perez. Sergeant Perez had been deployed to Iraq as part of the Army's 2nd Battalion, 5th Field Artillery Regiment. He died on November 2 when the Chinook helicopter he was in was shot down. An article appeared in the New York Times on Sunday, and it listed the 16 soldiers, including Sergeant Perez, the 16 young people who perished on behalf of our country, our interests, our liberty.
The names of those who died along with Joel Perez when that Chinook helicopter was shot down are: Daniel A. Bader, Ernest G. Bucklew, Steven D. Conover, Anthony D. D'Agostino, Paul F. Fisher, Darius T. Jennings, Karina S. Lau, Keelan L. Moss, Brian H. Penisten, Ross A. Pennanen, Brian D. Slavenas, Bruce A. Smith, Frances M. Vega, Paul Anthony Velazquez, and Joe N. Wilson.
We salute their bravery and their courage and their sacrifice.
Sergeant Perez was on that helicopter because he had been granted leave to come home to celebrate his third wedding anniversary. And now he has come home, in a flag-draped casket. Yesterday was his third anniversary and his funeral. He was 25 years old. He leaves behind his wife Milagros, an infant daughter Jaileen, his mother Luisa and father Edwin, and three brothers, Elvin, Michael, and Leo.
As I said at the funeral yesterday, it is a sobering moment when you see the reality of a life that has passed so quickly. All you have to do is look at the date of his birth--1978--and the date of his death-- 2003--they are much too close together.
Sergeant Perez is the ninth New Jersey resident killed in Iraq. The other eight are: Army SP Simeon Hunte, who was 23 years old, of Newark; Army 2LT Richard Torres, who was 25 years old, of Passaic; Army SFC Gladimir Philippe, who was 37 years old, of Roselle; Army SP Kyle A. Griffin, who was 20, of Emerson; Army SP Narson B. Sullivan, who was 21, of North Brunswick; Army SP Gil Mercado, who was 25, of Paterson, my home town; Army SSG Terry W. Hemingway, who was 39, of Willingboro; and Army SP Michael Edward Curtin, who was 23, of Howell.
I feel a special kinship to these young people because they were from my State. I also feel a special kinship because I am a veteran. I enlisted when I was 18 years old, right out of high school. I served in Europe during World War II.
Today is Veterans Day. It has been nearly 50 years since President Eisenhower signed a bill into law making November 11 Veterans Day.
The history of Veterans Day goes back even further, to 1918, when an armistice between the Allied and Central Powers brought World War I to an end at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.
On November 11, 1920, the British interred an unidentified British soldier in Westminster Abbey to commemorate the Armistice. The French interred an unidentified French soldier under the Arc de Triomphe in Paris.
In 1921, an American soldier's remains were disinterred in France and sent on the transatlantic voyage to Washington, D.C., where they lay in state in the Capitol Rotunda for three days. Then, at 11:00 a.m. on November 11, the remains of this Unknown Soldier were buried at Arlington National Cemetery beneath a marble block which reads, ``Here rests in honored glory an American soldier known but to God.''
Since the founding of our country, nearly 50 million men and women have answered the call of duty. There are about 25 million veterans alive today.
Right now, we have 130,000 troops in Iraq, another 10,000 in Kuwait, and 10,000 in Afghanistan. Other Americans are serving in South Korea, in Bosnia and Kosovo, and in every other corner of the globe.
We owe our veterans and the brave young men and women who currently serve in our military more than we can calculate. It is very tough duty. I know that from personal experience. That is why I deeply regret that the Senate is in session today. I do not ever recall the Senate being in session on Veterans Day before. Frankly, I think it is disrespectful to veterans across America and to the veterans in this body for the Senate to be in session today.
Why are we doing it? Why are we here? Well, we are told that we have a full agenda and that we have very few days left to get our work done--work that was supposed to be done six weeks ago. But how are we going to spend the precious few days before we hope to adjourn? We are going to take 30 hours of that time to debate a handful of highly controversial judges whose nominations Democrats object to.
I feel compelled to put this chart up on the floor for everyone to see because it is kind of a scorecard that shows the Clinton years and how many nominees were confirmed in those years and the dozens of nominees who were blocked by the Republicans. Then we can see how many of President Bush's nominees have been confirmed and how many have been blocked by Democrats.
Democrats are objecting to a total of four nominees who have neither the experience nor the temperament to be confirmed to lifetime positions in the federal judiciary. Four nominees have been blocked, 2 percent of the total. And we are being told that we cannot afford the time today to be at home with our veterans or go to the cemeteries or go to the veterans hospitals so that we can pay our respects to those who have served or are serving this country. We cannot be with our veterans today because we have to spend 30 hours starting tomorrow to talk about four nominees.
So, in all candor, I have to say that I am upset by our being here. It is not the question of another day's work--we can do the work--but that the majority could not find time to permit Senators to be in their States with their constituents, especially veterans, with the families who have lost loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan or Beirut or Vietnam or Korea or so many other places.
When I look at the reason why we are here today, it rings hollow, as far as I am concerned. I regret that we are here. This is the day we should meet with veterans groups. This is the day when we remember the sacrifice that so many have made on our behalf. This is the day we ought to be thinking about how we respond to our need for
additional troops in Iraq. This is the day we ought to think about what it is our brave young service men and women should come home to when they have fulfilled their duty: adequate health care and jobs and opportunity.
What kind of a message do we send to our veterans and to those who currently serve in our military? What kind of message do we send to the young men and women we are trying to recruit? Today is a solemn day deliberately set aside to pay tribute to our veterans, and the Senate is in session because we have to spend a day and a half starting tomorrow talking about four judges.
I want the veterans across the country and the young men and women currently in harm's way to know they are appreciated, to know that some of the misery they are going through now is understood. How do you do that? Ideally, you do that by taking the time necessary to go and greet them personally. You do it by making sure veterans' benefits are adequate. You do it by making sure the medical care will be there, and the educational opportunities. That is the appropriate way to show our veterans that we appreciate them. We are not going to show it by working here today when, in fact, the veterans back home would like to see us back home.
Be that as it may, we are stuck here today. So I want to take this opportunity to say in the most heartfelt way possible that I appreciate our veterans. And I salute the brave young men and women who currently serve, especially those who serve in the Reserves and the National Guard. I appreciate the enormous, enormous sacrifice that many of them are making now that we are asking them to serve a year or more at a time, taking them away from their families, their communities, and their jobs. Today reminds us of just how much we have to be thankful for.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time we have to our friend from North Dakota.
Mr. President, the recent nationwide publicity surrounding the murder of 27-year-old Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, has renewed public concern about violence against the unborn-- and…
Mr. President, the recent nationwide publicity surrounding the murder of 27-year-old Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, has renewed public concern about violence against the unborn-- and rightfully so.
Not long ago, the bodies of Laci--who was eight months pregnant at the time she disappeared--and Conner were discovered on a rocky shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. Baby Conner was found near his mother with his umbilical cord still attached.
Under California State law, intentionally killing a fetus is murder, and California prosecutors are seeking to bring separate murder charges in the deaths of Laci Peterson and her unborn son. But, I want make it very clear to my colleagues here in the Senate that the murder charge that California prosecutors will bring for the death of Laci's son would not be permitted if that crime were being prosecuted under current Federal law. And that--that is why we need to pass and get signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Let me explain.
In about half the States today, 26, if you commit a crime of violence against a pregnant woman and her unborn baby dies, you can be punished for the violence against both the mother and the unborn child. But, tragically, if you commit a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman and her baby dies, the death of the unborn child could essentially go unpunished. Examples of such Federal crimes of violence would include kidnapping across State lines, drug-related drive-by shootings, or assaults on Federal property.
This gap in the law leads to glaring injustices. It is time that we close this gap once and for all and let justice wrap its arms around our society's most vulnerable members.
That is why, it is imperative that we pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act--once and for all. Today, along with several of my distinguished colleagues--Senators Graham of South Carolina, Hatch, Brownback, Santorum, Kyl, Voinovich, McCain, Ensign, Enzi, Inhofe, Nickles, Bunning, Coleman, Chambliss, Grassley, Fitzgerald, Shelby, and Talent--we are re-introducing our legislation. This is the fourth time that I have introduced this bill--in fact, it was the first piece of legislation that I introduced at the start of the 108th Congress. This bill is strongly supported by President Bush, and a companion measure passed the House of Representatives in two previous Congresses. I intend to take procedural steps that would make this bill eligible to be taken up directly by the Senate, without further Committee action.
I thank my colleagues for their support of this effort, and would like to recognize especially Senator Graham of South Carolina, who championed this issue on the House side before joining us in the Senate. He has worked tirelessly to see to it that the most vulnerable are protected. I also would like to thank our lead House sponsors-- Congresswoman Melissa Hart from Pennsylvania and my friend and colleague from Ohio, Congressman Steve Chabot. They, too, are working tirelessly to get this bill passed by the other Chamber and signed into law.
Our bill would establish new criminal penalties for anyone injuring or killing a fetus while committing certain Federal offenses. Specifically, this bill would make any murder or injury of an unborn child during the commission of certain existing Federal crimes a separate crime under Federal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Twenty-six, 26, States already have criminalized the killing or injuring of unborn victims during a crime.
We live in a violent world. And sadly, sometimes--perhaps more often than we realize--even unborn babies are the targets, intended or otherwise, of violent acts. We have to protect these innocent victims. I'd like to share some disturbing examples with my colleagues of situations where the deaths of unborn children would have gone unpunished but for the existence of State criminal laws. If these same crimes would have occurred in the 24 States today that don't have such State laws, justice would not have been served, because there is simply no Federal law in place to try these crimes.
First, let me talk about the example of Airman Gregory Robbins. In 1996, Airman Robbins and his family were stationed in my home State of Ohio at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. At that time, Mrs. Robbins was more than eight months pregnant with a daughter they named Jasmine. On September 12, 1996, in a fit of rage, Airman Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt and savagely beat his wife by striking her repeatedly about the head and abdomen. Fortunately, Mrs. Robbins survived the violent assault. Tragically, however, her uterus ruptured during the attack, expelling the baby into her abdominal cavity, causing Jasmine's death.
Air Force prosecutors sought to prosecute Airman Robbins for Jasmine's death, but neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor the Federal code makes criminal such an act that results in the death or injury of an unborn child. The only available Federal offense was for the assault on the mother. This was a case in which the only available Federal penalty did not fit the crime. So prosecutors bootstrapped the Ohio unborn victims law to convict Airman Robbins of Jasmine's death. Fortunately, upon appeal, the court upheld the lower court's ruling.
If it hadn't been for the Ohio law that was already in place, there would have been no opportunity to prosecute and punish Airman Robbins for the assault against Baby Jasmine. That's why we need a Federal remedy to avoid having to bootstrap State laws to provide recourse when a violent act occurs during the commission of a Federal crime. A Federal remedy will ensure that crimes within Federal jurisdiction against unborn victims are punished.
Let me give you another example. In August 1999, Shiwona Pace of Little Rock, AK, was days away from giving birth. She was thrilled about her pregnancy. Her boyfriend, Eric Bullock, however, did not share her joy and enthusiasm. In fact, Eric wanted the baby to die. So, he hired three thugs to beat his girlfriend so badly that she lost the unborn baby. According to Shiwona, who testified at a Senate Judiciary hearing we held in Washington on February 23, 2000:
I begged and pleaded for the life of my unborn child, but
they showed me no mercy. In fact, one of them told me, ``Your
baby is dying tonight.'' I was choked, hit in the face with a
gun, slapped, punched, and kicked repeatedly in the stomach.
One of them even put a gun in my mouth and threatened to
shoot.
In this particular case, just a few short weeks before this vicious attack, Arkansas passed its ``Fetal Protection Act.'' Under the State law, Erik Bullock was convicted on February 9, 2001, of capital murder against Shiwona's unborn child and sentenced to life in prison without parole. He was also convicted of first-degree battery for harm against Shiwona.
In yet another example--this one in Columbus--16-year-old Sean Steele was found guilty of two counts of murder for the death of his girlfriend Barbara ``Bobbie'' Watkins, age 15, and her 22-week-old, unborn child. He was convicted under Ohio's unborn victims law, which represented the first murder conviction in Franklin County, OH, in which a victim was a fetus.
Ultimately, the fact is that it is just plain wrong that our Federal Government does absolutely nothing to criminalize violent acts against unborn children. We cannot allow criminals to get away with murder. We must close this loophole.
As a civilized society, we must take a stand against violent crimes against children--especially those waiting to be born. We must close this loophole.
We purposely drafted this legislation very narrowly. Because of that, our bill would not permit the prosecution for any abortion to which a woman consented. It would not permit the prosecution of a woman for any action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Our legislation would not permit the prosecution for harm caused to the mother or unborn child in the course of medical treatment. And finally, our bill would not allow for the imposition of the death penalty under this Act.
This is about making sure justice is done when a pregnant woman is attacked. And ultimately, I think that everyone in this Chamber would agree that people who violently attack unborn babies should be punished. When acts of violence against unborn victims fall within federal jurisdiction, we must have a penalty. We have an obligation to our unborn children who cannot speak for themselves. I think Shiwona Pace said it best she testified at our hearing: ``The loss of any potential life should never be in vain.''
I strongly urge my colleagues to join in support of this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, on this Veterans Day, I rise to recognize a group of truly deserving American veterans--the Tuskegee Airmen of World War II. This heroic group of African American flyers fought in two…
Mr. President, on this Veterans Day, I rise to recognize a group of truly deserving American veterans--the Tuskegee Airmen of World War II.
This heroic group of African American flyers fought in two types of battles--the battle of World War II and the battle against racism at home.
The Tuskegee airmen were dedicated, determined young men who enlisted to become America's first black military airmen, at a time when rampant racism led many people to falsely assume that black men lacked intelligence, skill, and patriotism. And boy, were they proved wrong.
The military feats of this group can be described as nothing less than phenomenal.
In Order to enter the training program, the young men were held to the same demanding physical and mental standards as all other military pilots and soldiers of supporting fields. And between 1942 and 1946, 992 black American pilots graduated from the rigorous program offered at Tuskegee Army Air Field, not to mention the black navigators, bombardiers, and gunnery crews that were trained at selected military bases elsewhere due to a lack of facilities at Tuskegee.
Four-hundred and fifty of the Tuskegee trained pilots headed to the Selfridge Air Base in Michigan for combat preparation, before bravely heading overseas as proud members of either the 99th Fighter Squadron or the 332nd Fighter Group, later to be conjoined. As the only four- squadron fighter group performing bomber escort missions in the 15th Air Force, the 332nd Fighter Group had extraordinary and unprecedented success. They flew all of their bomber escort missions--over 200-- without the loss of a single bomber to enemy aircraft.
The bomber escort missions of the famed 332nd ``Red Tail'' fighters were so daunting to the enemy that they served as an immensely strong deterrent to challenges. The bomber crews that the group escorted offered abundant expressions of appreciation since they faced far fewer challenges than other crews in the 15th Air Force.
Sadly, while these men were defending liberty for the people half a world away, they were also fighting for their own liberation right here in the United States. Despite their valiant deeds abroad, racism and bigotry impeded their success at home. Due to strict segregationist policies, their assignments were restricted to only two fighter groups, and one fighter wing. Their morale suffered more damage due to the lack of opportunities for advancement than their air fleet did by enemy fire.
Despite this setback, these soldiers still performed splendidly. In 1949, Tuskegee pilots took first place in the Air Force National Fighter Gunnery Meet, surpassing the performances of all the white units.
The bigotry against these men only served to hurt America. During the war, many white units badly needed additional qualified soldiers, but could not draw upon the superb skills of the Tuskegee airmen due to the military's segregationist policies.
But this cloud had its silver lining. The willpower and skill that brought success for the Tuskegee airmen abroad also helped in the war against racism at home. President Harry Truman, recognizing the need for an integrated air force, enacted an executive order demanding equality of treatment and opportunity in all of the armed forces.
The Tuskegee airmen were instrumental in the passing of this executive order, which paved the way for broader victories later on, including the end of racial segregation in all military forces, and eventually in the United States as a whole.
These soldiers are a vibrant part of America's history and a part of Michigan's. Not only did many of the soldiers train at Selfridge Air Base, but the cadet classes drew heavily from the Detroit citizenry. One such citizen made Michigan understand the value of the Tuskegee program to its own history.
Lieutenant Coleman Young, later to become a long-time mayor of Detroit, was a product of the Tuskegee experience. Assigned to the 477th bombardier, he and his colleagues were never sent into combat due to racism from senior officers. Determined to preserve the memory of the Tuskegee airmen, with the help of other Detroit members, he fostered what has become the National Tuskegee Airmen Historical Museum, housed at historic Fort Wayne. This small but dignified museum, occupying an old officer's quarters, perpetuates the great story the Tuskegee have to tell.
A story I believe we should all listen to. All in all, these soldiers gave over 150 lives in the name of their country and in the name of freedom. I now call on that country, the United States, to provide them the recognition they deserve on this Veterans Day.
According to existing records, 155 Tuskegee soldiers originated from Michigan, I wish to recognize each one of them:
Tuskegee Airmen
Kermit Bailer; Clarence Banton; James Barksdale of Detroit;
Hugh Barrington of Farmington Hills; Naomi Bell; Thomas
Billingslea; Lee Blackmon; Charles Blakely of Detroit, Robert
Bowers of Detroit; James Brown of Ypsilanti; Willor Brown of
Ypsilanti; Ernest Browne of Detroit; Archibald Browning; Otis
Bryant; Joseph Bryant, Jr. of Dowagiac; Charles Byous; Ernest
Cabule of Detroit; Waldo Cain; Clinton Canady of Lansing;
Carl Carey of Detroit; Gilbert Cargil; Nathaniel Carr of
Detroit; Donald Carter of Detroit; Clifton Casey; David
Cason, Jr; Peter Cassey of Detroit; Robert Chandler of
Allegan; Pembleton Cochran of Detroit; Alfred Cole of
Southfield; James Coleman of Detroit; William Coleman of
Detroit; Eugene Coleman; Matthew Corbin of Detroit; Charles
Craig of Detroit; Herbert Crushshon; John Cunningham of
Romulus; and John Curtis of Detroit.
Donald Davis of Detroit; Cornelius Davis of Detroit; Eugene
Derricotte of Detroit; Taremund Dickerson of Detroit; Walter
Downs of Southfield; John Egan; Leavie Farro, Jr.; Howard
Ferguson; Thomas Flake of Detroit; Harry Ford, Jr. of
Detroit; Luther Friday; Alfonso Fuller of Detroit; William
Fuller of West Bloomfield; Frank Gardner; Robert Garrison of
Muskegon; Thomas Gay of Detroit; Charles Goldsby of Detroit;
Ollie Goodall, Jr. of Detroit; Quintus Green, Sr.;
Mitchell Greene; James Greer of Detroit; Alphonso Harper of
Detroit; Bernard Harris of Detroit; Denzal Harvey; James
Hayes of Detroit; Ernest Haywood of Detroit; Minus Heath;
Milton Henry of Bloomfield Hills; Mary Hill; Charles Hill,
Jr. of Detroit; Lorenzo Holloway of Detroit; Lynn Hooe of
Farmington Hills; Heber Houston of Detroit; Ted Hunt; and
Hansen Hunter, Jr.
Leonard Isabelle Sr., Leonard Jackson; Lawrence Jefferson
of Grand Rapids; Alexander Jefferson of Detroit; Silas
Jenkins of Lansing; Richard Jennings of Detroit; Louie
Johnson of Farmington; Ralph Jones; William Keene of Detroit;
Laurel Keith of Cassopolis; Hezekiah Lacy of River Rouge;
Richard Macon of Detroit; Albert Mallory; Thomas Malone;
Ralph Mason of Detroit; J. Caulton Mays of Detroit; William
McClenic; Arthur Middlebrooks; Oliver Miller of Battle Creek;
Vincent Mitchell of Mt. Clemens; Wilbur Moffett of Detroit;
Dempsey Morgan of Detroit; Russell Nalle, Jr. of Detroit;
Robert O'Neil of Detroit; Frederick Parker; Robert Pitts of
Detroit; Wardell Polk of Detroit; Walter Poole; Calvin Porter
of Detroit; Calvin Porter; Leonard Proctor; Della Rainey;
Sandy Reid of Southfield; Edward Rembert; Harry Riggs of
Bloomfield Hills; Walter Robinson of Detroit; Major Ross of
Oak Park; Washington Ross of Detroit; John Roundtree of
Westland; Calude Rowe of Detroit; William Ruben; William
Rucker; Jesse Rutledge of Detroit; and Issac Rutledge.
Calvin Sharp; Albert Simeon, Jr. of Detroit; Paul Simmons,
Jr. of Detroit; Leon Smith; Chauncey Spencer; William
Stevenson; Chester Stewart of Detroit; Harry Stewart of
Bloomfield Hills; Roosevelt Stiger of Jackson; Howard Storey;
Willie Sykes of Detroit; Willis Tabor; Kenneth Taitt of
Detroit; William Taylor, Jr. of Inkster; Lucius Theus of
Bloomfield Hills; Donald Thomas of Detroit; Austin Thomas;
Wm. Horton Thompson of Detroit; Jordan Tiller; Paul Tucker of
Detroit; Edward Tunstall of Detroit; Allen Turner of Ann
Arbor; Cleophus Valentine of Detroit; Charles Walker of
Jackson; Robert Walker; Roderick Warren of Detroit; Theodore
Washington of Detroit; Richard Weatherford of Aibion; Jimmie
Wheeler of Detroit; William Wheeler of Detroit; Cohen White
of Detroit; Harold White of Detroit; Paul White; Peter
Whittaker of Detroit; Leonard Wiggins of Detroit; David
Williams of Bloomfield Hills; Willie Williamson of Detroit;
Robert Wolfe; William Womack; and Coleman Young.
Mr. President, once again we find our young men and women in harm's way in a foreign land. As they have so many times in our history, Americans in uniform carry the torch of freedom in their hands…
Mr. President, once again we find our young men and women in harm's way in a foreign land. As they have so many times in our history, Americans in uniform carry the torch of freedom in their hands and the promise of peace in their hearts as they face those who would rule by tyranny and violence. On this Veterans Day, I rise not only to commend our veterans but also to recognize the men and women of the State of Maine engaged on the front lines in the Global War on Terrorism.
Maine is well represented by young men and women serving on active duty in our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. Since September 11, 2001, citizen-soldiers from across the State of Maine from all Reserve and Guard components have closed ranks with those on active duty to protect our shores and secure our future.
The men and women from Maine have left homes, jobs, and loved ones to answer the call to duty. Senior Master Sergeant Stephen Valley is among them. Steve, who hails from Millinocket, ME, left the active Air Force in 1994 after nearly eighteen years of service. In 1998, he joined the Air Force Reserve, and despite family challenges, including a father sick with Parkinson's disease, stepped forward and mobilized in November of 2001. Steve served nearly continously in the Middle East since then, including duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, until he retired from active service on November 1. He is a man of courage and character. He represents the best we offer to a world longing for freedom and peace.
Mainers are deployed around the globe. Nearly twenty-five percent of the Maine Army National Guard is on alert, mobilized, or deployed. Maine National Guard soldiers are guarding prisoners at Guantanamo Naval Station in Cuba. Soldiers of Company E, 120th Aviation of Bangor are controlling air traffic in Afghanistan. Members of the 112th Air Ambulance Unit
from Bangor are performing medivac missions in Iraq. Soldiers of the 11-36 Transportation Company from Bangor and Sanford are moving supplies across Iraq and Kuwait. Soldiers from the 94th Military Police Company of Maine and New Hampshire are performing police missions across Iraq and are helping to train Iraqi forces to assume security responsibilities.
This past summer, I went to Iraq. I met hundreds of American and British troops. I saw people from Maine performing key roles in rebuilding the country after the fall of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. In the city of Kirkuk, I ate lunch with five service members from Maine--Specialist Gregory Norster of Phillips, Chief Warrant Officer Brian Mucci of Shapleigh, Specialist Wayne Goodrich from Oakland, Specialist Erin Maynard from Washburn, and Senior Airman Bill Spreng from Ellsworth. The contributions of Mainers to bring freedom to the people of Iraq make me very proud.
The courage and commitment of the American and other coalition troops were strikingly clear during my visit. By night, many of the soldiers conduct raids on pockets of resistance; by day, they renovate schools, rebuild roads and utilities, and help Iraqis take their first steps toward democracy. Despite the continuing danger, the harsh living conditions, and the oppressive heat, morale among the soldiers and Marines I met was high. Army Sergeant Michael Levesque of Winslow put it best when he told me how proud he was to have ``helped to give the Iraqi people a precious gift: their freedom.'' In Kirkuk, where I met Michael, morale was particularly high because the Iraqis there are so grateful. Everywhere we went in this city south of the Kurdish section, local citizens waved and called out ``thank you, America!''
By contrast, conditions--both in July and today--remain hostile in and around Baghdad. Our troops face near daily ambushes and sniper attacks. The fighting goes on for many of our troops who must contend with the threat of rocket-propelled grenades, improvised explosive devices, and rogue gunmen.
Of all the places I have visited as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Korea, nowhere have I found the challenges more difficult and the dangers more present than in Iraq. In the end, the commitment of the Iraqi people will determine whether Iraq will prosper in peace and freedom, or succumb to a violent minority bent on division, destruction, and domination. The dedicated young men and women serving in uniform, from Maine and from all over America, are giving the Iraqi people the opportunity to seize what all humanity desires and deserves.
On this day set aside to honor sacrifice, we must also honor the sacrifices made by the spouses, parents, children and other loved ones of our troops. The families left behind must face the challenges of daily living as they suffer from the separation and from the relentless worry. The news of any casualty strikes a chilling chord in their hearts. Every death, every injury, is a blow to them as they wait, and hope, and pray.
In September, I met with family members of the deployed soldiers of the 94th Military Police company. These families have had to endure two extended deployments in three years: the 94th conducted a peacekeeping rotation to Bosnia that ended in 2001; in 2002, the 94th was called to arms again and is performing admirably in Iraq. The soldiers of the 94th are proud and professional and committed to getting the job done. Their families bear the burden of absence and uncertainty. Among them was Penny Mills, wife of Sergeant Curtis Mills of Shapleigh, ME.
Just one week later, soldiers of the 94th were ambushed in Iraq. Two were severely wounded: Specialist Christopher Kotch of Brunswick and Sergeant Curtis Mills. Soon after, I visited them at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. There was Penny, standing by her husband. We had no idea we would meet again--not so soon, not under those circumstances. Sergeant Mills, with the support of his wife and family, is recovering well. After reconstructive surgery and extensive physical therapy, he will one day return to work as a letter carrier. Specialist Kotch, after his recovery, will likely return to college and a life of possibility and promise.
In times of peace and in times of trial, we rely on our young men and women to step forward for our defense. The citizens of Maine have answered the call. America's first casualty in the War on Terrorism was Master SGT Evander Earl Andrews of Solon, ME, who lost his life in Qatar on October 10, 2001. Today, in Litchfield, ME, a father grieves for his daughter, Army Warrant Officer Sharon Swartworth, who miraculously survived the attack on the Pentagon two years ago but who did not survive an attack on a Black Hawk helicopter in Iraq last Friday. These are but two of the soldiers who died not just in the service of their country, but also in the service of mankind. They did so on behalf of millions of people they did not know--innocent Iraqis, Afghans, and Americans who died on 9-11, and all peace-loving people everywhere.
Our service members and veterans--whether they served in World War I or II, Korea, Vietnam, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait, or now in Afghanistan or Iraq--share a common bond: their uniform is not that of a conqueror, but of a liberator. We can never fully pay the debt we owe those who put their lives on the line to advance the cause of freedom.
Nor can we repay the debt we owe those families and loved ones they leave behind. The enormity of that debt was best summed up one-hundred thirty-nine years ago in a President's letter to a mother who lost five sons in the war to preserve this Nation. I will close with the words of Abraham Lincoln:
I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine
which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss
so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the
consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic
they died to save.
I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of
your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of
the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours
to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.
Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic side? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Veterans Day, our national day of…
Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic side?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Veterans Day, our
national day of remembrance established to solemnly honor the sacrifices of American men and women who have served in military actions in behalf of our country.
We recognize these men and women for preserving our liberty, freedoms and democratic way of life. For me, as a first-year Senator representing the men and women of Arkansas, this is an especially noteworthy Veterans Day. Since September 11th, numerous Arkansans have engaged in our battle against terrorism, serving in Afghanistan and other points abroad. This fall, over 3,000 men and women of Arkansas, members of our 39th Infantry Brigade of the Arkansas National Guard, are preparing to travel to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Every day my prayers include the brave men and women of Arkansas who serve, and have served, in our armed forces. I pray that every single one of our brave Americans in uniform will return safely home to the loving arms of their families.
Sadly, many of our veterans have not returned safely home. Many of our veterans have paid the ultimate price, sacrificing their lives on the altar of freedom. We must never forget their sacrifices. We must never forget the cost of freedom paid by our veterans.
As he gazed on the battlefield at Gettysburg in 1863, Abraham Lincoln uttered, ``The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.''
I am in a similar situation today, unable to articulate anything which even comes close to capturing the debt of gratitude each and every one of us owes our veterans. No words can capture my gratitude, or the gratitude of Arkansas, towards our veterans.
Yet, as I mentioned, Veterans Day is a day of remembrance. This is a day to honor and remember those who have served in our armed service. Last week, I had the distinct pleasure and unique opportunity to talk with Johnie ``Chick'' Matthews. Chick, at 102 years old, is Arkansas's oldest living veteran.
Mr. Johnie ``Chick'' Matthews, a resident of Greenbrier, Arkansas, first answered the call to duty to serve this country in 1917. That was 86 years ago.
He was given the nickname Chick because he enlisted into the United States Army when he was only 16 years old. He was the youngest at his training facility at Camp Pike, AR.
His mother was a widow with mouths to feed and he realized that he needed to help shoulder the financial responsibilities of caring for his mother and brothers.
He went to Little Rock to enlist in the Army. He lied about his age. The recruiter said: We are not sure we believe you, so go home and get your mother to sign this document. When he went back home, he was scared to take it to his mother because he was afraid she would not sign the age waiver so he went to a neighbor woman and said: Mother hurt her hand and she cannot sign this. Can you sign this on her behalf? She did, and he was enlisted in the U.S. Army.
At the age of 16, he was the youngest soldier in his unit, probably one of the youngest in the Army. But when it was all said and done, as he ended his military career, Chick had completed 46 years of military service spanning World War I through Vietnam. That is truly remarkable. In addition, he served in four branches--the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and the Merchant Marine.
When I talked to Chick, I was entertained and captivated by his stories, but most of all I was impressed by his sense of duty. In fact, when I asked him if he would recommend military service to others, he said: If they would let me in, I would be there tomorrow morning to sign up.
In addition to Chick Matthews, I recognize another veteran who is a bit younger, but no less committed, to his country and to the State of Arkansas. Randy Massanelli is a native Arkansan who dutifully served in the U.S. Army for 15 years. While in the Army, he rose to the rank of major and served in Desert Storm where he was awarded the Bronze Star. Now he serves as my State director in Little Rock. I am grateful for the knowledge, experience, and perspective he brings to the office as I work to do what is best, not just for veterans and the troops around the country and around the world, but also for the people of Arkansas.
I have known Randy since we were both at the University of Arkansas as undergraduates. I thank him today. He has shown me time and time again what true devotion to his country really is. I am lucky to have him on my team and I am proud to call him a friend. I honor him today as a great veteran.
Last, I want to recognize another veteran on my staff, Wayne Palmer, who also served in Desert Storm. Wayne is a tremendous asset to my office. I thank him for his service to our country.
Arkansans throughout the years have followed Chick's, Wayne's, and Randy's lead. I am proud to boast about my State's tradition of military service. As veterans continue to risk life and limb for us, I will work as hard as I can to make sure they are taken care of before, during, and after their mission is completed.
In the coming days, we will vote on the Defense authorization conference report. As a conferee, I was proud to work on this legislation, which includes a 3.7 percent across-the-board military pay increase, expands TRICARE coverage for the Guard and Reserve personnel and their families, and provides benefits and programs to improve the overall quality of the pay for our service men and women.
This legislation also authorizes disabled military retirees to collect their retirement pay and disability compensation, otherwise known as concurrent receipt. This measure would benefit millions of Americans who have served our country for years but have been prohibited from receiving both retirement compensation and VA disability benefits.
Correcting this inequity for our veterans is long overdue--in fact, 110 years overdue. I made a promise to take care of our service men and women who put their lives on the line for our country. This provision indicates Congress's intention to finally honor its word.
I am also looking forward to debating the VA/HUD appropriations bill where I have an understanding we will be looking to add $1.3 billion to veterans health care. We cannot discount the importance of this funding, especially as more veterans come home from Afghanistan and Iraq and the global world on terrorism. We must ensure that the Veterans' Administration has the resources it needs to look after those men and women who look after us.
Mostly, this Veterans Day fills me with a sense of security and pride because of my faith in the ability and skills of our men and women in uniform. This faith nourishes my hope for a peaceful future for my children and the children of Arkansas.
I know our men and women in uniform are the most capable fighting force on Earth. I know these individuals will willingly endure personal sacrifice and danger to defend our democratic values, just as our veterans of yesteryear endured personal sacrifice and danger to provide us the freedom and democracy we enjoy today. I know our Armed Forces will be victorious in their mission.
On this Veterans Day, I extend my gratitude and the gratitude of every Arkansan to our veterans and their families.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, in the past few days, the tragic headlines from Iraq have reminded us of the selfless sacrifices our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen make every day to keep this country strong…
Mr. President, in the past few days, the tragic headlines from Iraq have reminded us of the selfless sacrifices our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen make every day to keep this country strong and safe. The conflict in Iraq brings home again the debt we owe to America's veterans for their service and their sacrifices.
In North Dakota, we are extremely proud to have the highest per capita participation in the Guard of any State and to be among the leaders in per capita participation in the Reserves. More than 1,000 North Dakota National Guardsmen and reservists in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan are serving with distinction. Behind these statistics, though, are individual soldiers who have left behind families. With the wonders of modern technology, I can hear directly from soldiers who are on the frontlines in Iraq. I hear of their accomplishments, when they've helped make life just a little better for an Iraqi family or even a whole community. I hear of their pride in doing a job well for their country. But I also hear
of their frustration with searing heat, swirling dust, and irregular access to showers and the other comforts we take for granted. I hear of their worries about family at home, how their loved ones are coping with their absence and their concern that the news of deaths and injuries among their fellow soldiers are adding to the stress on their families. I hear their longing to get back to home and family. In short, I hear of the sacrifices they are making on our behalf.
And every day I hear from the family members of our activated servicemen and servicewomen. I hear how proud they are that their beloved ones are serving the country they love. But I also hear of the added burden that those left behind must bear. I hear the frustration of not knowing when a loved one will come home and of learning that the deployment has been extended. I hear of the hit on the family finances for Guardsmen or reservists who have left higher paying jobs to serve their country--and of the spouses who are left to keep the family business running on their own. I hear of the added work as one parent takes on the work normally done by two--the caregiving, the helping with homework, the coaching, the meal preparation--all the little chores that add up and are starting to become a source of stress for some families. I hear the added anxiety of knowing that a loved one is serving in a dangerous role far from home. Each time the phone rings, they hope that it will be a rare opportunity to hear that everything is going well and to say ``I love you,'' but they fear that it could be news of a casualty. In short, I hear of the sacrifices that they are making on our behalf.
And I hear of the tremendous impact on small communities throughout North Dakota. The current call-up has meant the loss of valued employees in small businesses on main streets across the state. It has meant the loss of teachers, volunteer firefighters, policemen, and medical personnel. And it has meant the absence of church leaders, PTA leaders, Little League coaches. In short, it has meant sacrifices great and small.
So this Veterans Day, we are reminded of the tremendous sacrifices of our veterans and their families. Today is a Federal holiday. But it is more than that. It is an opportunity to stop and thank veterans for their service and their sacrifice. It is an opportunity to tell them how proud they make you. And it is an opportunity to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice and the debt of gratitude and honor this country owes to their heroism.
I deeply regret that the business of the Senate is keeping me here in Washington so that I am not able to deliver that message personally to the tens of thousands of North Dakota veterans who served in past conflicts and wars. More than 50,000 veterans currently live in my State. Their service is rich in history. I remember reviewing historical accounts of one of the most significant engagements involving North Dakotans in 1942, when members of the 164th Infantry Regiment of the ND Army National Guard were the first Army unit to engage in combat action in the Pacific Theater on Guadalcanal. I was honored to have introduced a resolution that passed the Senate in 1992 paying tribute to the heroic actions of the 164th Infantry unit.
Today, as I noted earlier, military personnel from our State continue to protect our homeland and to serve in hostile environments around the world. Active duty personnel from the Minot and Grand Forks AFB, Air National Guard from Fargo, and the more than 1,000 Army National Guardsmen and reservists continue to play a vital role in homeland security and in the fight against terrorism. We owe these active duty personnel and their families a deep debt of gratitude for responding to the extraordinary challenges posed by international terrorism.
As we observe Veterans Day, let us remember that the respect and appreciation that we show our veterans and active duty personnel on this day is an act that we should demonstrate every day of the year. It is especially important that we honor veterans and their families by making certain that our active duty personnel and veterans receive the benefits that we have promised and that they are entitled to receive. We can do no less for the sacrifices that they have made.
That is why I am working hard in the remaining days of the 1st Session of the 108th Congress to make certain that our veterans receive significant increases in funding for VA health care, funding that should come as close as possible to the recommendations of our national veterans service organizations in the annual Independent Budget. I am hopeful that Congress will increase the VA health care budget by $1.3 billion, bringing the level close to $27.2 billion. I strongly support that increase. Additionally, I am very concerned by the uncertainty of annual appropriations for VA health care every year, and believe that we need to make VA health care funding mandatory to guarantee that veterans get the health care they need and deserve. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation, S. 50, that would guarantee full funding for VA health care.
I also believe that it is time to end the penalty against our disabled veterans, and am pleased that we are making progress on providing full concurrent receipt of veterans disability compensation and military retirement pay for more veterans. While final action has not been completed on the concurrent receipt, I am hopeful that an agreement to expand significantly the number of veterans eligible for concurrent receipt and military retirement pay, without an offset, will be enacted by Congress in the very near future. We must, however, continue our efforts to provide full concurrent receipt for all veterans entitled to this benefit.
Let me close by saying thank you. Thank you to our veterans. Thank you to our military personnel now on active duty around the world. Your service and your sacrifice make me, and you make America, very, very proud.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add five additional minutes on each side. Mr. President, on this Veterans Day, I want to share a few ideas about the meaning this day holds for my family and…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add five additional minutes on each side.
Mr. President, on this Veterans Day, I want to share a few ideas about the meaning this day holds for my family and for thousands of families throughout Washington State.
Today is a day to honor the sacrifices that generations of Americans have made to defend our country and to support freedom throughout the world. It is a day to reflect on the courage and bravery of our soldiers. And it is made even more special as we think of all our military personnel who are deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hostile environments. But it is much more than that.
It is a day to make sure that we are living up to the promise we make to all veterans--a promise that President Lincoln described as:
. . . to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and
for his widow and his orphan.
Today throughout Washington State, people are coming together to honor our veterans at places such as the Tahoma National Cemetery, the Washington Veterans Home, and in communities large and small. Washington State is home to almost 700,000 veterans, and every day I am honored to represent them in the United States Senate.
Growing up, I saw firsthand the many ways that military service can affect both veterans and their families.
My father served in World War II. He was among the first soldiers to land on Okinawa. He came home as a disabled veteran and was awarded the Purple Heart. I should note that, like many soldiers of his generation, my father did not talk about his experiences during the war. In fact, we only really learned about them by reading his journals after he passed away.
And I think that experience offers a larger lesson about veterans in general. They are reluctant to call attention to their service, and they are reluctant to ask for help. That's why we have to publicly recognize their sacrifices and contributions. It is up to use to make sure that they get the recognition they have earned--and not just on Veterans Day. It is one of the reasons why a few years ago I worked to ensure that all veterans could get the military funeral honors. My father had them, and they meant a great deal to our family.
I was proud to introduce legislation and to work with the VA and veterans service organizations to ensure that any family that requests military funeral honors can get them.
In addition to my own family experiences, when I was a senior in college at Washington State University, I spent a semester interning at the Seattle Veterans Hospital, helping to treat young soldiers returning from Vietnam. They were my age at the time. I will never forget the sound of the door locking behind me after walking on to the hospital's psychiatric ward to spend the day with these heroes. While these combat veterans were my age, they had endured experiences most of us could never imagine.
Today, as I see an administration that is considering closing veterans hospitals in Washington State--even as today's veterans have to wait 6 months just to see a doctor, and as the war in Iraq adds to the number of veterans who will need medical care--I get upset, and I fight with everything I have. Our veterans have already fought for our country, they should not have to fight to get the healthcare or benefits they were promised, so we've got to fight on their behalf.
Today we must ask, Are we keeping our promise to America's veterans? Here are some facts to help us answer that question.
Fact: Right now, 80,000 veterans are waiting 6 months or longer for an appointment at VA hospitals.
Fact: For the past 2 years, an average of 14,000 veterans have been waiting more than 15 months for their ``expedited'' disability claims to be finalized.
Fact: Veterans could face new fees and higher co-payments--just to get the healthcare they are already entitled to.
Fact: Each year in Congress there is a debate over how much money we should spend on veterans' healthcare. Too often, our veterans lose out to other budget priorities.
Fact: Disabled veterans pay a high penalty through what is called the ``Disabled Veterans Tax.'' They must give up a dollar of their pension for every dollar of disability pay they receive.
Fact: The VA is looking to ``reconfigure'' veterans' health care and is now studying the closure of two VA facilities in Washington State.
And finally, the war in Iraq--and the tremendous toll it is taking on our soliders--is increasing the number of veterans who will need medical care for years down the road.
Those are all facts. To me, they show that we are coming up short in keeping our promise to America's veterans. So what can we do about it?
Simply put, we need to make veterans services a priority once again. No. 1, to cut down on the long waits that veterans endure; to help expedite claims; and to avoid higher fees and co-payments. We need to increase funding for veterans services.
To end the annual appropriations game, we should make VA healthcare funding mandatory. That is why I support the Veterans' Health Care Funding Guarantee Act. It would make veterans' healthcare an automatic priority for our Nation.
The VFW, AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans and many other veterans groups strongly support this bill.
We must also make sure that the Department of Veterans Affairs does not close critical medical facilities at a time when more are seeking VA healthcare.
In addition, we must end the disabled veterans tax and ensure that veterans are not penalized just because they receive disability pay.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of a plan that would authorize full payment of both retirement pay and disability compensation to half a million disabled military retirees. And unlike other proposals, our plan would take effect immediately, instead of over 10 years.
And finally, we have to do right by today's veterans and by tomorrow's veterans. The brave men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today will need our help when they return home. How we treat them will send a signal to a generation of young people who may be considering military service.
We have to keep our promise today and tomorrow.
So while we are currently coming up short, I am going to keep pushing for the solutions that will truly serve our veterans. America's veterans have earned our respect, and they have earned the benefits they were promised when they signed up. They should not have to fight for the care and support they were promised.
On this day--and every day that I am given the honor of representing them--I will stand up and fight for Washington's veterans and the freedom and security they have given us through their sacrifices in war and peace.
I hope we keep our promise.
Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, November 11, Veterans Day, is the day of reverence for American veterans. It is the day of the year set aside to honor the people who have defended our country, our way of life, and…
Mr. President, November 11, Veterans Day, is the day of reverence for American veterans. It is the day of the year set aside to honor the people who have defended our country, our way of life, and our freedom. It is the day that allows us to pause to recognize their patriotism, their love of country, their willingness to serve, and their willingness to sacrifice.
Just last year, President Bush called Veterans Day the day that we ``show our gratitude to the veterans of the United States Armed Forces''--a day when ``we honor veterans and we honor their families, and we offer the thanks of a grateful Nation.''
The very origins of this day are both historic and symbolic. It began at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month--that is, 11/11/11-- of 1918 when the allied powers signed a cease-fire agreement with the central powers, thus bringing to an end the 4-year bloody nightmare known as World War I.
The next year, the United States set aside November 11 as Armistice Day to remember and honor the sacrifices that men and women made during World War I.
In 1926, a congressional resolution officially named November 11 Armistice Day. Twelve years later, in 1938, Congress made Armistice Day a national holiday.
In 1954, following World War II and the Korean war, Congress made November 11 a day to honor veterans of all wars, and therefore changed the name of this most important day to Veterans Day. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the President of the United States at the time, asked Americans to use this day to ``remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom.'' In the first Presidential ``Veterans Day Proclamation,'' President Eisenhower proclaimed:
It is my earnest hope that all veterans, their
organizations, and the entire citizenry will join hands to
insure proper and widespread observance of this day.
Just how important and symbolic this day had become to the American people and, especially, our veterans, was demonstrated in the reaction to the Uniform Holiday bill of 1968. This legislation was part of an overall plan to make holidays part of a 3-day weekend, which would, in turn, encourage travel, recreational and cultural activities, and stimulate greater industrial and commercial activity. In so doing, this legislation changed the observance of Veterans Day from November 11 to the fourth Monday in October.
Seldom in all of my 51 years in Congress has Congress so misjudged the feelings of the American people. American veterans in particular, and Americans in general, demanded that the observance of Veterans Day be restored as November 11. It was all right to monkey around with Columbus Day, we learned, and even the birthday of the father of our country. But we should have never touched November 11.
According to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, November 11 has a special meaning to veterans of all wars and is a part of American history. Of all the days in the year, the one day which has the most significance to those citizens who made an extra sacrifice in the national interest by their service in the Armed Forces is November 11.
Many States simply continued to celebrate November 11 as Veterans Day.
Immediately, Members of Congress introduced legislation to redesignate November 11 as Veterans Day. My former colleague in this Chamber, Senator Robert Dole, who himself was a World War II veteran and was destined to become a majority leader of the Senate and a nominee of the Republican Party for Vice President and President, proposed such legislation. He called November 11 a ``legal holiday that provides a unique and fitting day of recognition for our American veterans.'' It is the day, Senator Dole declared, when the Nation pays ``tribute and homage to the men and women who have given so much in their quest for world peace and freedom.''
By 1975, 42 States, including my own State of West Virginia, had returned to the practice of celebrating Veterans Day on November 11. In that year, Congress approved legislation to return the annual observance of Veterans Day to November 11. President Gerald R. Ford signed the bill, stating:
It has become apparent that the commemoration of this day
on November 11 is a matter of historic and patriotic
significance to a great many of our citizens. It is a
practice deeply and firmly rooted in our customs and
traditions.
More recently, when legislative ideas were circulating through Congress to bolster voter participation in Federal elections, at least one proposal centered on designating Veterans Day as the national election day. In response to that proposal, my office was flooded with phone calls from veterans, saying: ``Please don't take away our special day.''
Mr. President, November 11 is their special day. It is for this reason that during the years in which it was my privilege to serve as the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, I was always determined that this legislative body would not be in session on this most important and symbolic date. I always wanted to make sure that my colleagues and I had the opportunity to take part in the many ceremonies that take place on this day in honor of the courage and the sacrifice of America's veterans. I always wanted to make sure that this Chamber paid proper homage to the men and women to whom we owe so much.
Writing about the thousands of soldiers who lost their lives during the bloody battle at Antietam, Civil War historian, Bruce Catton, pointed out that these men did not die for a few feet of a cornfield or a rocky hill; they died that this country might be permitted to go on, and that it might be permitted to fulfill the great hope of our Founding Fathers.
So may it be said of most every person who has worn our Nation's uniform. These people served and they sacrificed to permit this country to go on to fulfill the great hope of our Founding Fathers. And it is proper and it is right that we take one day a year to pay our most profound respect to the men and the women who have worn our Nation's uniform, and to thank them.
I thank them and we here in the Senate thank them on this day for what they have given, for what they have sacrificed, and for their love of country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Show 11 more
Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Specter and Kennedy today in re-introducing legislation that will give new hope to Americans with paralysis. Recent news reports about the medical…
Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Specter and Kennedy today in re-introducing legislation that will give new hope to Americans with paralysis.
Recent news reports about the medical miracle Christopher Reeve has experienced over the two past years is an inspiration for every American living with paralysis as a result of a spinal cord injury. When it was announced that, for the first time since his accident in 1995, Chris regained sensation and movement in parts of his body, providing inspiration for some of the two million Americans with paralysis. Most recently, Chris has started weaning himself from a ventilator, breathing on his own for the first time since his accident.
Today, through the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act of 2003, we seek to achieve two primary goals. First, to further advance the science needed to promote spinal regeneration. And second, to build quality of life programs throughout the country that will further advance full participation, independent living, self-sufficiency and equality of opportunity for individuals with paralysis and other physical disabilities.
Chris' recovery and recent scientific evidence show that progress is possible. At research centers in the United States, Europe and Japan, techniques of rigorous exercise have helped numerous persons with paraplegia with limited sensations in their lower bodies walk for short distances, unassisted or using walkers.
While the results of these new methods are quite promising, the limits of what physical exercise can do for patients remains grossly understudied. While each person and each injury is unique, and some people recover spontaneously, an estimated 250,000 Americans are living with spinal cord injuries that have not improved. Which therapy or combination of therapies will work for each person is unknown. Today two million Americans are living with paralysis, including spinal cord injury, stroke, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, ALS and spina bifida. We need research to see how these new interventions work on the entire population of individuals with paralysis.
What we do know is the ordinary repetitive motions used in most rehabilitation centers, like squeezing a ball, are almost certainly not enough to appropriately address neurological injuries.
Patients are usually told that after one year, two at the most, they will never make further progress in their abilities to move or feel sensation. Yet eight years after his accident, through a rigorous exercise plan, Chris is finally seeing results.
Due to efforts led by the National Institutes of Health and the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, our Nation stands on the brink of amazing
breakthroughs in science for those with paralysis. However, the biotech and pharmaceutical industries have not invested in paralysis research because they believe the market does not support the private investment. There is an urgent need for the Federal Government to further step up its commitment in this area. The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act would do just that.
By establishing Paralysis Research Consortia at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, we can substantially increase our ability to capitalize on research advances in paralysis. These consortia would be formed to explore unique scientific expertise and focus across the existing research centers at NINDS in an effort to further advance treatments, therapies and developments on one or more forms of paralysis that result from central nervous system trauma and stroke.
Additional breakthroughs are underway in rehabilitation research on paralysis. Federal funding for rehabilitation research at the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research at NIH is showing real potential to improve functional mobility; prevent secondary complications like bladder and urinary tract infections and ulcers; and to develop improved assistive technology. These rehabilitation interventions have the potential to greatly reduce pain and other complications for people with neurological disorders and stroke and, at the same time, save millions in health care costs.
Over the past 20 years, overall days in the hospital and rehabilitation center for those with paralysis have been cut in half. Those with paralysis face astronomical medical costs, and our best estimates tell us that only one-third of those individuals remain employed after paralysis. At least one-third of those with paralysis have incomes of $15,000 or less.
To date, there are no State-based programs at CDC that address paralysis and other physical disability with the goal of improving health outcomes and prevent secondary complications. This bill will, for the first time, ensure that individuals with paralysis get the information they need; have access to public health programs; and support in their communities to navigate services. Ultimately these programs will help remove the barriers to community participation and help improve quality of life. The bill also establishes hospital-based registries on paralysis to collect needed data on the true numbers of individuals with these conditions, and it invests in population-based research to see how various therapies impact different people.
We are on the brink of major breakthroughs for individuals with neurological disorders and stroke that result in paralysis. This bill will ensure that the federal government does its part to help more than 2 million Americans.
When Christopher Reeve was injured, he put a face on an issue that has been neglected for too long. Since then, his tireless efforts to walk again, coupled with his passion and commitment to improve quality of life for others with paralysis, make him an inspiration to all Americans.
It is a pleasure and an honor to lead a bipartisan group of Senators, along with the support of a number of disability groups, including the American Stroke Association, the American Heart Association, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the National Family Caregivers Association, the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Paralyzed Veterans of America and Easter Paralyzed Veterans, in introducing this bill.
Mr. President, if this is a unanimous consent request for more time, I would like to accommodate my colleagues. I have come to the floor with the expectation to speak at noon, which it is now, on the…
Mr. President, if this is a unanimous consent request for more time, I would like to accommodate my colleagues. I have come to the floor with the expectation to speak at noon, which it is now, on the Syria Accountability Act, and actually I had some time on veterans as well. I have other commitments, such as, to go to the White House for the bill signing ceremony with the President.
So I am glad to accommodate my colleagues, but if it is going to run for 28 more minutes, that is going to preclude my speaking on the Syria Accountability Act.
Mr. President, reserving----
Mr. President, today, Veterans Day, we honor America's veterans. It is to serve as 85 years of recognition after armistice was declared on November 11, at 11 a.m., in 1918. We pay tribute to our veterans today, but I suggest to my colleagues and fellow Americans we ought to pay more tribute to veterans every day.
The first veteran I knew was my father, Harry Specter, who was a veteran of World War I. My father had come to the United States as an immigrant, at the age of 18, in 1911. The Czar in control of Russia at the time wanted to send my father, among many others, to Siberia. My father chose instead to come to America. He literally walked across Europe, barely a ruble in his pocket, and traveled at the bottom of the boat to the United States to make a new life for himself. He did not know at that time that he had a round-trip ticket to France, not to Paris and the Folies Bergeres with the dancing girls, but to the Argonne Forest where he was wounded in action.
My father carried shrapnel in his legs until the day he died. The U.S. Government promised the veterans of World War I a $500 bonus and, as has been the case so frequently with the U.S. Government, the promise was broken. The veterans then mounted a march on Washington in 1932 to seek redress, exercising their constitutional right to petition their Government, and also in petitioning their Government, to have the Government fulfill the promise the Government had made to pay the veterans a $500 bonus.
Today, when there is a demonstration in Washington, the red carpet is rolled out. On that day, in 1932, the cavalry was rolled out with drawn sabers, led by MAJ George C. Patton. In command was the Chief of Staff of the Army, Douglas MacArthur. There is a famous picture of General MacArthur, with his aide de camp, MAJ Dwight Eisenhower. On that day, veterans were killed. It is one of the blackest days in American history.
That was the way the U.S. Government responded to the pleas of the World War I veterans who were asking only for what they had been promised--their $500 bonus. In a sense, in a metaphor, I have been on my way to Washington ever since to get my father's bonus. I have not gotten it yet, so I am still here and running for reelection.
When we honor the veterans today, we ought to make note of the fact that the medical services that are available to veterans are, realistically viewed, insufficient. We are about to take up, in the course of the next several days, the appropriations bill for veterans. We are endeavoring to get an additional $1.3 billion to help on veterans medical benefits.
I have the honor to chair the Veterans Affairs Committee in the Senate. Later today, I will join President Bush at the White House for a bill-signing ceremony, where we are creating additional veteran cemeteries across America, so that the families of veterans can be near their departed loved ones and can pay tribute without traveling long distances.
At the present time, families of veterans who live in southeastern Pennsylvania have to travel about 100 miles to Indiantown Gap, to Annville, to pay respects, where veterans are now interred, buried, from the southeastern part of the State. After a great deal of effort, going back about 6 years, I am paying tribute to former Congressman John Fox, who worked with me initially to introduce the legislation that was finally passed by both Houses of Congress. Jim Gerlach is the current sponsor in the House of Representatives--Congressman Gerlach-- and there will be a bill-signing ceremony today where President Bush will affix a signature and we will at least have done that for veterans.
There are many issues pending to take care of America's veterans. We are currently in the Veterans Affairs Committee reviewing a proposal by the Department of Veterans Affairs to alter the hospital accommodations across America. We are determined to see to it that any changes which are made benefit rather than hurt veterans.
Mr. President, on the subject of the proposals which are now pending, I am very much concerned, as chairman of the committee, for the entire Nation about what will happen to many of the facilities which are under review--facilities in New York, facilities in California, facilities across the country, and one very hotly contested facility in Waco, TX. I am concerned about what will happen in Pittsburgh where there are proposals to close Highland Drive. If that is done, there has to be an adequate accommodation so that the facilities are at least equal to, if not better than what is currently available. There are concerns about Butler, PA, Erie, PA, and across my State. A new facility is due in Lebanon.
So on this day when we are concerned about veterans, when we pay honor to them, we ought to remember
that the veterans have created the climate of freedom. When we pause and remember the veterans on Armistice Day of 1918, remember that it is a continuum of veterans who have served America since the Revolutionary War. My brother served in World War II, as did my brother-in-law in the South Pacific. I was in the service during the Korean war and served stateside.
We now have many aging veterans from World War II and the Korean war who need more accommodations. We have veterans from Vietnam and the gulf war and from Iraq. As we pay tribute to the veterans for what they have done for America, America should reciprocate and see to it that the needs of veterans are adequately responded to.
Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to change the way the Veterans' Administration defines low-income veterans by taking into account variations in the cost of…
Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to change the way the Veterans' Administration defines low-income veterans by taking into account variations in the cost of living in different parts of the country. The Corzine-Clinton legislation would make the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation just that: Equitable.
More specifically, this bill would replace the national income threshold for consideration in Priority Group 5--currently $24,000 for all parts of the country--with regional thresholds defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This simple but far- reaching proposal would help low-income veterans across the country afford quality health care and ensure that Veterans Integrated Service Networks or VISNs receive adequate funding to care for their distinct veteran populations.
Our Nation's veterans have made great sacrifics in defense of American freedom and values, and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. The United States Congress must ensure that all American veterans--veterans who have sweated in the trenches to defend liberty-- have access to quality health care.
In 1997, Congress implemented the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system, or VERA, to distribute medical care funding provided by the VA. The funding formula was established to better take into account the costs associated with various veteran populations. Unfortunately, the VERA formula that was created fails to take into account regional differences in the cost of living, a significant metric in determining veteran healthcare costs. This oversight in the VERA formula dangerously shortchanges veterans living in regions with high costs of living and elevated healthcare expenses.
To allocate money to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks, VISNs, VERA divides veterans into eight priority groups. Veterans who have no service-connected disability and whose incomes fall below $24,000 are considered low income and placed in Priority Group 5, while veterans whose incomes exceed this national threshold and qualify for no other special priorities are placed in either Priority Group 7c or Priority Group 8. VERA only reimburses the treating Medical Care facility for the care that they provided to veterans in priority groups 1-5 and does not provide any Federal reimbursement for the care provided to priority group 7 and 8 veterans.
Using a national threshold for determining eligibility as a low- income veteran puts veterans living in high cost areas at a decided disadvantage. In New Jersey, HUD's fiscal year 2002 standards for classification as ``low-income'' exceed $24,000 per year in every single county. And some areas exceed the VA baseline by more than 50 percent. Similarly, HUD's ``low-income'' classification for New York City is set at $35,150, and for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, at $40,150.
As a result, regions that have a high cost of living, like VISN 3, which encompasses substantial portions of New Jersey and New York, tend to have a reduced population of Priority Group 5 veterans and an inflated population of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans.
The fundamental inequity of the VERA formula is apparent when you consider the VERA allocations do not take into account the number of veterans classified in Priority Groups 7c and 8. Because of the costs associated with these Priority Groups 7c and 8 veterans are not considered as part of the VERA allocation, and because high cost of living areas have large populations of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans, high cost regions must provide care to thousands of veterans without adequate funding.
This additional financial burden on VISNs with large populations of non-reimbursable veterans in Priority Group 7c and 8 has had a tremendous impact on VISN 3. Since FY 1996, VISN 3 has experienced a decline in revenue of 10 percent. As a result of the tremendous shortfall in the VISN 3 budget, the VA cannot move forward with plans to open clinics in various locations, including prospective clinics in Monmouth and Passaic Counties. Consequently, veterans in VISN 3 are forced to wait for unreasonably long periods to receive medical care and travel long distances to existing clinics, and those veterans who are able to access care are being treated in facilities operating under tremendous financial difficulty.
Furthermore, miscategorizing which vets quality as Priority Group 5 unjustifiably reduces access to medical care for thousands of veterans. Under existing rules, veterans placed in Priority and Groups 7c and 8 must provide a copayment to receive medical care at a VA medical facility; Veterans placed in Priority Group 5 receive medical care free of charge. Under the existing
framework, low-income vets in high cost areas are often inappropriately placed in Priority Groups 7c and 8, and are forced to provide a copayment.
Recent studies by both the RAND Institute and the General Accounting Office identify this flaw in the VERA formula and recommend a geographic means test like the one provided in our legislation to improve the allocation of resources under VERA. Such a test would ensure that the VERA formula allocation better reflects the true costs of VA healthcare in the various VISNs in the United States.
Our legislation would make a simple adjustment to the VERA formula to account for variations in the cost of living in different regions. The bill would help veterans in high cost areas afford VA health care and guarantee that VISNs across the country receive adequate compensation for the care they provide.
I hope my colleagues will join Senator Clinton and me in supporting this important bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
I yield up to 7 minutes to the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. Mr. President, I yield up to 4 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas. I yield up to 4 minutes to the senior Senator from…
I yield up to 7 minutes to the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner.
Mr. President, I yield up to 4 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.
I yield up to 4 minutes to the senior Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.
I yield up to 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.
I yield up to 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici.
I yield up to 1 minute to the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to take up to 4 minutes.
Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the remarkable men and women who have, over the years, placed their lives in danger to preserve ours. On this Veterans Day, we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. We express sincere gratitude for those who continue to serve and protect our freedom, and we honor those families who also contribute every day in service of our country.
On the heels of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom, this Veterans Day is particularly significant. As we speak, American and allied soldiers continue to fight and die in defense of our liberty. Many are face to face with danger at this very moment.
It is these remarkable men and women, past and present, who embody the democratic ideals that are the foundation of our great Nation. I would like to share with you the story of one soldier who recently lost his life in Iraq. The following commentary was written by LTC John Kem, a former Army legislative fellow who worked on the Subcommittee on Military Construction during his year here. He wrote:
There are very few events more poignant than a memorial
service for a fallen Soldier. The service finishes with a
final roll call by the company first sergeant of the
Soldier's squad members. Each Soldier in turn responds:
``Here, first sergeant.'' Then, three times in a row, the
first sergeant calls out the dead Soldier's name. Finally,
after the third silent pause, waiting for a response that
will never come, a lone bugler sounds Taps.
This evening [he said] I went to a memorial service for
Private Second Class Jonathan Falaniko. Jonathan was killed
on Oct. 27 in Baghdad by a rocket-propelled grenade. As you
would expect, the memorial service was sad, but it was also a
profound lesson on faith, selfless service and a family's
love.
Jonathan's unit, the 70th Engineer Battalion, is part of
the Army's 1st Armored Division Engineer Brigade. The senior
enlisted soldier in the brigade happened to be Jonathan's
father, Command Sergeant Major Ioakimo Falaniko.
After the company commander and a few of Jonathan's friends
spoke at the memorial service, the command sergeant major
stepped forward and spoke. He spoke about Jonathan as both a
soldier and a son.
Sergeant Major Falaniko read from a few of Jonathan's
recent letters.
For a point of reference, Jonathan was a new soldier who had been in the Army less than 6 months. He attended basic training beginning in May 2003 and deployed to Iraq in August of this year. The following quotes are from some of his letters in the last few months of his life:
Dad, I love being in the Army and I love serving my
country.
Dad, this is where I belong, and this is where I need to be
with you and the other iron soldiers.
Dad, I push myself hard because I know the drill sergeants
expect a lot out of me.
Dad, Iraq is a mess and I am glad we are here to fix it.
Sergeant Major Falaniko finished by sharing from his heart talking about the kind of kid his was; the kind that loved his sisters and sent them money on every payday just to let them know he was thinking about them.
He concluded by saying to the hundreds of soldiers there at their memorial service, from the three-star general to the private:
What our country brings to Iraq is a chance for freedom and
democracy . . . making a difference every day. My son died
for a good cause . . . he answered the Nation's call like a
typical American soldier. Jonathan was accomplishing his
mission, doing what he was supposed to be doing. He had a big
heart and he was proud to be a soldier.
Then, First Sergeant Allen called:
Private Falaniko.
And there was silence.
Again, he called:
Private Jonathan Falaniko.
And finally:
Private Jonathan Ioakimo Falaniko.
Silence prevailed.
Jonathan Falaniko was a hero who made the ultimate sacrifice. Both he and his father are examples of what makes our Army and our country great.
The Army and our Nation mourn his death. That young man--a soldier for not even a full year--was buried at Arlington National Cemetery on Friday.
On this Veterans Day, I think we should reflect on the wonderful young men and wonderful fathers who would put service to country above all else, for they are the ones who are protecting the freedom that we enjoy today.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I ask what the allocation of time is.
Mr. President, let me ask the Democratic Senator in the Chamber if that is enough time for them to finish. We need to be through at 12:15.
How much more would that extend the time on the other side? How much more time would
that give us if we equally divided that, our 5 minutes plus the extra?
Mr. President, I do not think we need 28 minutes. I was going to ask for 5 minutes for the Senator from Alabama, which we have left on our side. I think if you wanted----
Fifteen?
Mr. President, if I could ask a unanimous consent request and see if this is what people want: that there be 15 minutes divided on the Democratic side as they wish and 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama, for a total of 20 minutes from now. Is that an acceptable unanimous consent request to all on the floor?
Mr. President, today, I had hoped to be in Sutton, WV to fully celebrate Veterans Day with West Virginia veterans and their families. Since the Senate is in session, I must be in Washington, but I do…
Mr. President, today, I had hoped to be in Sutton, WV to fully celebrate Veterans Day with West Virginia veterans and their families. Since the Senate is in session, I must be in Washington, but I do want to recognize some of our Nation's finest men and women who have served to protect that which we hold most dear, our very freedom.
Last weekend, I was in West Virginia and I had the chance to talk with Army Sergeant Jared Welker of Putnam County. Sergeant Welker is a tank gunner who saw considerable action in Iraq, and who has just recently returned home. I had the privilege to spend a few hours with this young soldier. Hearing about the war in Iraq from his point of view, a young man serving in a tank division entering Baghdad, made me very proud of the men and women serving in the military--where ever they are stationed. Sergeant Welker's description of his days in Iraq will stay with me. His courage and his commitment to duty are truly inspiring.
And it is also a sobering reminder of the obligations that we in Congress have to fully support our troops in the field, and at home, and as veterans later in their lives.
On Veterans Day, we should take time to pay our respect to those who put their lives on the line and sacrificed in our defense. We have a duty to honor all veterans in both word and deed.
We honor them by remembering their courage, their loyalty, and their love of country. My State has one of the strongest traditions of military service, and I could not be more proud of that. When the call has come to defend this Nation, West Virginians have answered in great numbers. In a State as patriotic as our Mountain State, reminders of our veterans, heroes and heroines, are everywhere. They stand as a reminder of the battles fought defending the principles of democracy.
Understanding the sense of patriotism of the people of West Virginia is what caused me to seek a seat on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs the day I arrived in the Senate 19 years ago. Joining the committee was one of the best decisions I ever made.
These last few weeks in Congress have been extremely important ones for our Nation=s veterans. One of the most important issues of concern today
is the President's budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2004. Everything provided by VA will be a direct result of the proposed budget now before Congress. Regrettably, the President's budget request for VA health care for fiscal year 2004 will barely cover the cost of inflation at our VA Medical Centers, but there is still time to fix those misplaced priorities.
Full funding is needed for a health care system that is besieged with responsibilities. I am fighting, along with a number of my Senate colleagues, to get an additional $1.8 billion appropriated for VA health care before Congress recesses this year.
In addition to our veterans who depend upon VA for their health care and prescription drugs today, current law allows members of the military, who serve during an armed conflict, to use VA upon their return. This includes currently deployed Reservists and National Guardsmen, who are such a big part of West Virginia's contribution to our war effort. The system must be adequately funded for all these veterans.
Another critical issue of concern continues to be long-term care for veterans. As our veteran population grows older, VA must make sure that it can meet the need for long-term care. A bill I introduced earlier this year extending, for five years, the congressional mandate requiring VA to provide long-term care for veterans through both nursing homes and community-based options still has potential to be enacted this year. This is extremely important legislation, and I will continue to push until this become law. If I cannot convince my colleagues to act this year, I will be right back next year fighting for it until it is done.
I was thrilled to be in Clarksburg last month for the ground breaking of our new State veterans' home, which will be built adjacent to the Clarksburg VA Medical Center. I have worked closely with both State and Federal officials on this project over the last several years, and I am very proud of everyone who has been involved in making this much needed nursing home a reality. It is time that West Virginia had a State veterans' nursing home.
In closing, I would like to read a paragraph from a letter found in the gear of a 20-year-old boy from Beckley serving during World War II. I think it is appropriate on this Veterans Day.
Private First Class Walter Walker was killed in battle in 1944 and he had written a letter to be delivered to his parents in case of his death.
He wrote:
Frankly I think I will come back, but you never can tell
what little accident will happen. I am doing this for my
country and people I love. So that little children may grow
up to be free and not have to take orders from devils like
Hitler and Tojo. I will gladly give my life to keep you and
dad free as long as you may live.
Private Walker was a hero of WWII.
Sergeant Welker, and the more than 100,000 brave men and women serving today, are the heroes of Iraq.
Today, we honor all our young men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, and all those who have served in our military. We need to remember to stand proud when we see the American flag waving high in the air, and nod our heads in respect when we pass by a veterans' cemetery. We need to remember that behind each of these symbols of America are the people who have made them so remarkable--our Nation's veterans.
Mr. President, today, on Veterans Day, we commemorate and pay special honor to all the veterans who have made such great sacrifices in the name of country and democracy. This day is particularly…
Mr. President, today, on Veterans Day, we commemorate and pay special honor to all the veterans who have made such great sacrifices in the name of country and democracy.
This day is particularly poignant as our Nation is at war. There are more than 150,000 military service members in harm's way, fighting overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They fight for freedom of the Iraqi people, who have faced decades of extreme oppression and brutality under Saddam Hussein, and against the Taliban forces, who continue to pose a challenge in Afghanistan.
Sadly, nearly 500 have paid the ultimate sacrifice and many more have sustained life altering injuries.
And as we prepare to send thousands more in harm's way, I believe that it's our obligation to ensure that our military service members and veterans receive full support from Congress, and that our efforts are tailored to benefit those who proudly serve this Nation.
We have recently granted the Administration an additional $87 billion dollars in supplemental funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.
While I would have preferred that some of those funds be in the form of a loan to Iraq, and that there be more safeguards to ensure the funds are well-used, I believe that it was necessary to provide these funds.
It is clear to me that we must stay the course, and we must rebuild the infrastructure, prevent civil war, and see to it that Iraq does not become a base for terror and instability throughout the region.
We must see to it that a stable governmental structure and viable economy apart from Saddam's tyrannical dictatorship can be put in place.
And most importantly, we must see to it that our troops are given all the tools necessary to accomplish these objectives.
Approving the additional funding was the only way to truly support our military service members and aid their ultimate success.
As we seek to ensure that the current war efforts are well funded, we also need to realize that very soon, the young men and women of our armed forces will be returning home.
Some will require extraordinary care for a long period of time. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that they have adequate facilities to aid them in their recovery and recuperation.
There must not be any doubt by any of our injured veterans that they did the right thing in sacrificing health to defend our nation's interest.
The best way to prove to them that they have our full support is to ensure that they receive good health care and adequate benefits once they return home.
It is our responsibility to make sure that our veterans are not waiting six months or longer for appointments at VA hospitals, nor should they have to wait for 15 months for disability claims to be finalized, as is now often the case.
And prescriptions costs must be affordable.
We need to make room available in VA hospitals to ensure that all of our veterans whether active duty or reserves are adequately served.
In order to accomplish this task we must be cautious as we close hospitals under the Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services-- CARES--program to ensure that we don't leave our veterans stranded without accessible services.
As our veterans return home, some with great and debilitating injuries, we must also ensure that their compensation is just, full, and reflective of the American spirit.
Finally, we need to remember the families of the great men and women who are separated from their loved ones.
We must make sure that their concerns are the Nation's concerns. While their loved ones are overseas fighting for America's interest, Congress must ensure that their medical needs are covered.
As I reflect on the origin of Veterans Day, it brings me great hope that our service members will be home and peace will reign again.
On June 4, 1934, Congress enacted a concurrent resolution, recognizing November 11, 1918. The resolution states: ``Whereas the 11 of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relation with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; . . . ''
On May 13, 1938, the 11 of November was approved as a legal holiday dedicated to world peace, known as Armistice Day. Finally, on June 1, 1954, Congress renamed Armistice Day to Veterans Day, thereby commending all veterans.
Veterans Day is often associated with war, but its true significance lies in peace and humanity.
Since September 11 this country has undergone tremendous struggle and uncertainty.
We have shown that our resiliency is greater than our fears and our convictions of freedom and right can not be compromised.
This country is great because its citizens are great. This country was born from the sacrifice of its citizens and the vision they saw.
Today we honor the citizens who served and continue to serve our great country. They are the protectors of our democracy and our way of life; they are our veterans.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas and the others who have spoken. It is a great honor and privilege to be on the Senate floor on this Veterans Day to acknowledge the sacrifices of…
Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas and the others who have spoken.
It is a great honor and privilege to be on the Senate floor on this Veterans Day to acknowledge the sacrifices of America's veterans and the priceless service our veterans have rendered to a grateful Nation.
Earlier this morning Senator Thomas, Senator Inhofe, and I visited the Washington VA hospital to say thank you. Previously, I had been to Walter Reed and Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, as I know many Members have, to say thanks also to those returning from the current war. In all of these visits and in everything we do, we should express our thankful appreciation to America's veterans, particularly while we find ourselves embroiled in a war against those seeking to destroy all America stands for, what we hold most dear, our freedom.
It is the soldier, sailor, airman, and the marine to whom we have turned for protection from terrorists and the failed nation states that support them. Our troops are performing in an exemplary manner, taking the fight to those who would harm us on enemy territory and on our terms. The events of September 11 and the military operations that have ensued since then have brought a renewed understanding and respect for our Nation's military and our veterans.
In response to the horrendous acts carried out on 9/11, our men and women in uniform have taken action, as our veterans have done countless times throughout history.
We are fighting the war on terrorism on many fronts, using all the tools at our disposal. We will win this conflict through the patient accumulation of successes, by meeting a series of challenges with determination, with will and with purpose. This campaign is a marathon, not a sprint. We must be mindful to think not only in the near term but to look ahead 5, 10, 15 years and to take this opportunity to shape our future world. We must find a way to help contribute to the peace and stability of what is clearly still a dangerous and unpredictable world.
After 9/11, President Bush said:
In the months ahead, our patience will be one of our
strengths . . . patience and understanding that it will take
time to achieve our goals; patience in all the sacrifices
that may come.
Today, sacrifices are being made by our troops who defend us far from home, and by their proud yet worried families. The sacrifices they make are the same sacrifices made by those who served before them. We ask an awful lot of those who wear the uniform. We ask them to leave their loved ones, to travel great distances, to risk injury, even risk death. They are dedicated, they are honorable, and they represent the very best of our country. We are indeed grateful for these countless sacrifices. We can never repay our debt to those who serve our Nation, but we can ensure they know they will never be forgotten. Today, we have some very real reminders of the cost of freedom. It is an absolute that we would not enjoy the freedoms we have today were it not for the willingness of our men and women to serve each of us and our country by committing to fight on our behalf in the armed services.
We are fighting every day on the many fronts around the world and those of us in this body work to provide not only the resources we need to ensure that our men and women in the field are the best trained, best equipped, best prepared, and the best protected, but we also work to ensure we meet the commitments made to our veterans who have served in the past.
As former Secretary of Defense William Cohen once said, we are ``unwilling to live in a world in which evil triumphs. And as a result, the flag of freedom flies not only over America, but over those countries whose people had to yield to the terror of tyranny and under the heel of boots of dictators.'' Our veterans have kept the flame of freedom alive, and they are a true reflection of the American spirit.
There are many accolades for veterans, but the one I like best is from Father Dennis Edward O'Brien's ``What Is A Vet?''
He is an ordinary yet extraordinary human being, a person
who offered some of his life's most vital years in the
service of his country and who sacrificed his ambitions so
others would not have to sacrifice theirs . . .
He is a soldier and savior and a sword against the
darkness, and his is nothing more than the finest, greatest
testimony on behalf of the finest, greatest nation ever
known.
So remember, each time you see someone who served our
country, just lean over and say thank you. That is all most
people need, and in most cases will mean more than any medals
they could have been awarded or were awarded.
President Bush said it best when he described the will of our Nation by saying:
We will not waiver; we will not tire; we will not falter;
and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail.
That peace and freedom will prevail because of the commitment of those who serve in uniform. America's veterans are the rock on which we have defended America's shores and are the reason our President can make such promises.
May God bless our veterans for their service, and may He continue to bless America.
The Senator from Texas just inquired whether the Senator from Alabama might go next. I understand I have 5 minutes remaining; is that correct? I would be happy to have the Senator from Alabama finish…
The Senator from Texas just inquired whether the Senator from Alabama might go next. I understand I have 5 minutes remaining; is that correct?
I would be happy to have the Senator from Alabama finish his remarks which are 5 minutes. I will take 5 minutes, and then we will finish.
Mr. President, how much time remains?
Mr. President, in April of this year I was in Italy. I had stopped at an American military cemetery about 15, 20 minutes outside of Florence. On a beautiful morning, the sun was shining on the graves of 5,000 American soldiers who left their homes, left their families, and answered the call to serve their country and gave their lives during the Second World War. Their final resting place is now a cemetery, a beautifully kept military cemetery maintained by the Battlefield Monuments Commission of our country south of Florence.
I was thinking of that prose that says: When the night is full of knives and the lightning is seen and the drums are heard, the patriots are always there, ready to fight and ready to die, if necessary, to defend their country. Those patriots have given the ultimate sacrifice all across the world in defense of freedom here.
I was thinking this morning of a telephone call last week. I called a German hospital in which Brandon Olson was resting. He had just been wounded in Iraq. I called him in the hospital and I called his mother. Brandon Olson's mother called him on Thursday. On
Friday he had his foot amputated. She called him prior to surgery. When I talked to her, she told me her son was under heavy medication. She could tell when she called him that he was in pain and his voice was weak.
This mother told her son, lying in the German hospital: You don't have to talk. I just want to hear you breathe.
It is a mother, concerned about her son, who left this small town of Hazen, ND to answer the call of his country. That is Brandon Olson. But it was also Brandon Ericson and Jason Frey, young men and women, in this case three North Dakotans, who lost their lives fighting in Iraq.
Finally, I believe, after some long period, this country is reaching out to its veterans and finally understanding its requirement, its obligation to say thank you--thank you for your sacrifice and thank you for honoring our country.
This morning in the newspaper in our largest city, Fargo, ND, they pointed out that:
The planeload of civilian passengers in a metropolitan airport terminal a couple of weeks back who stood and cheered in unison when asked by United Airlines to give up their seats on an overbooked flight and take a later flight so that soldiers headed home on 14-day leaves from Iraq could get there a few hours earlier. Every soldier got a seat on that airplane.
They all got on that flight because other passengers gave up their seats. That is what is happening in this country today as we face danger, difficulty, and challenges as a nation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and danger from terrorists around the world. Our country is saying to those who wear our uniform: Thank you. We owe you a great debt, one which we may never be able to repay, but we recognize your sacrifice and commitment to our country.
As I looked at those gravesites south of Florence, Italy, in that beautiful cemetery on that April morning, I thought of John McCrae's wonderful poem ``In Flanders Fields.'' He wrote:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short day ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
It reminds us again--especially today, on Veterans Day--all across America that the liberty we enjoy, the freedom we take for granted was paid for by the blood of patriots, and every American family has been touched by those patriots who have given the ultimate sacrifice. Every American community can and should recognize today those who live up the block or down the block or on the farm, who went all across this world and have fought valiantly for America's freedom, and have come home to live quietly among neighbors, never talking much about their service to our country.
But that service is what has made this the wonderful country it is. There is no place like it on Earth. There is no place quite as free as the United States of America, and that freedom has not been achieved without great sacrifice by young men and women. When America sends its sons and daughters to war, when America asks its sons and daughters to fight, then we must resolve to do everything we can to make that a successful fight on behalf of America's freedom.
Today, we honor wonderful veterans who have served this country for many decades.
I yield the floor.
I thank the Senator from North Dakota and appreciate his courtesy. I don't think veterans are going to be unhappy we are here working today. They might have been happy to see the scene yesterday when…
I thank the Senator from North Dakota and appreciate his courtesy. I don't think veterans are going to be unhappy we are here working today. They might have been happy to see the scene yesterday when we should have been able to make progress on a number of things, and we had the assistant Democratic leader speaking 8 hours plus and reading from a book about cactus and rabbits. They might be unhappy about that.
We have soldiers in the field this very day at risk, carrying out the policy of this Senate, this Congress, that we passed by over a three- fourths vote. We ought to be here talking about our country and doing some of the country's business.
In fact, I was in Walter Reed Hospital this morning. I had the honor to meet with the service men and women who have been injured, some fairly seriously, in the service of their country.
I met with Sergeant Larry Gill who grew up in Mobile, AL, went to Murphy High School where my daughter went. I knew his father, Lieutenant James Gill, in the Mobile police department, a great officer. Larry Gill had a severe injury to his lower leg. He has been there over a month now. It is getting better. He was so optimistic. It was so wonderful to see his wife Leah who is a school teacher at Murphy High School, and his two children, Sean and Ryan, and be able to talk with them and see the positive attitude he had, the commitment to serving his country. It was so inspiring. Larry Gill in 1983 was a young Marine serving in Beirut, Lebanon when that embassy was attacked, guarding the embassy as a marine, as he was often called upon to do. He was knocked unconscious and had to be dug out from the rubble of the attack. He was a victim of terrorism in 1983. Now he comes back as part of our war on terrorism and is injured again.
As he said, he thought he ought to start collecting baseball cards rather than Purple Hearts. That just is an example of his spirit.
At the time he was injured, he was part of a National Guard unit from Alabama, the 1165th MP company. SPC Chris Harris and SGT Richard Barns and SPC4 Jose Garcia were injured.
I see Senator Lautenberg here.
SPC4 Garcia, from New Jersey, was assigned to the unit. He was injured, and he refused to go home; said, no, he wanted to stay with his unit, as did Specialist Harris. Both had flesh wounds that could have caused them to be removed from the theater. They said, no, they wanted to stay with their troops. That is the kind of character and courage we have out there today. It is a pleasure to see them.
I also visited PFC Chris Busby from Valley Head, AL, a town of 600. He was injured in Baghdad. He was in an uparmored Humvee. That is important because we have been trying to make sure every uparmored Humvee possible is there because it is much more resistant to attack than regular Humvees. His foot was out the door as he was speaking and a mortar round hit. He said had he not been in an uparmored Humvee, he may well have been far more seriously injured, if not killed. His arm and leg which were outside the door were both severely injured.
Asking how he happened to join, he said: Well, it was after September 11. I thought I ought to serve my country.
He is 20 years old. His father was there. His father served 7 years as an MP. His brother is in Germany. He is also an MP. That is the kind of great, rock-solid Americans who preserve, protect, and defend our country on a daily basis. I am so proud of them. They serve us so well.
Just a little over a week ago I had the burden of calling Mrs. Roxy Bell. Her son, Aubrey Bell, 33, a sergeant with the 214th MP Company, National Guard Company from the Alabama National Guard, was killed in a firefight through an improvised explosive device in Baghdad at the Al Bayra police station where he was working. Sergeant Bell was part of the 214th MP company from Baldwin County, AL. I had the pleasure to visit with them when I was in Iraq in August. I had supper with them. I talked to them. They talked about patrolling the streets of Baghdad with the Iraqi police who had been brought on, which is exactly what we need to do to stabilize that country, bring on more Iraqi police. They were so positive, had such extraordinarily good morale. I was exceedingly proud of them. It was most painful to have to call and talk to his mother at the loss of her fine son who lost his life serving his country.
All of us need to remember that. We have sent those young men and women out. They are serving at our direction. They are placing their lives on the line for us on a daily basis.
We ask God's blessing and protection be with each one of them and that we are given the wisdom to help guide them in the application of their abilities and their lives in an effective way.
Mr. President, today I wish to pay my respects to my fellow veterans. It is only through the leadership, dedication and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, that we are able to enjoy the…
Mr. President, today I wish to pay my respects to my fellow veterans. It is only through the leadership, dedication and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, that we are able to enjoy the freedoms that being an American entails.
No matter what your views on the war on terror or the war in Iraq, all Americans can unite behind our brave men and women in uniform. These fine Americans have truly answered our Nation's highest calling and we are better off for it. Today is a day to give thanks to these heroes.
On Veterans Day, I like to share the story of one of my heroes during my service, Mike Christian. I have shared his story before and it has become familiar to many, yet it bears repeating. This year, as Americans serve across the globe in important battles against error and tyranny, Mike Christian's story takes on even more meaning. In the same manner as service in Vietnam, a new generation of heroes is emerging in Iraq.
In the early years of our imprisonment in Hanoi, the North Vietnamese kept us in solitary confinement, or if we were fortunate, two or three to a cell. In 1971, the North Vietnamese moved us from these conditions of isolation into large cells with as many as 30 to 40 men to a room. This was, as you can imagine, a wonderful chance. And was a direct result of the efforts of millions of Americans, led by people like Nancy and Ronald Reagan, on behalf of a few hundreds POWs, 20,000 miles from home.
One of the men who moved into my cell was Mike Christian. Mike came from a small town near Selma, AL. He didn't wear a pair of shoes until he was 13 years old. At 17, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. He later earned a commission. He became a naval aviator, was shot down and captured in 1967. Mike had a keen and deep appreciation for the opportunities this county--and our military--provide for people who want to work and want to succeed.
The uniforms we wore in prison consisted of a blue short-sleeved shirt, trousers that looked like pajama trousers and rubber sandals that were made out of automobile tires. I recommend them highly; one pair lasted my entire stay.
As part of the change in treatment, the Vietnamese allowed some prisoners to receive packages from home. In some of these packages were handkerchiefs, scarves, and other items of clothing. Mike got himself a piece of white cloth and a piece of red cloth and fashioned himself a bamboo needle. Over a period of a couple, of months, he sewed the American flag on the inside of his shirt.
Every afternoon, before we had a bowl of soup, we would hang Mike's shirt on the wall or our cell, and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I know that saying the Pledge of Allegiance may not seem the most important or meaningful part of our day now, but I can assure you that--for those men in the stark prison cell--it was indeed the most important and meaningful event of our day.
Our day, the Vietnamese searched our cell and discovered Mike's shirt with the flag sewn inside, and removed it. That evening they returned, opened the door of the cell, called for Mike Christian to come out, closed the door of the cell, and for the benefit of all of us, beat Mike Christian severely for the next couple of hours.
Then they opened the door of the cell and threw him back inside. He was not in good shape. We tried to comfort and take care of him as well as we could. The cell in which we lived had a concrete slab in the middle on which we slept. Four naked light bulbs in each corner of the room.
After things quieted down, I went to lie down to go to sleep. As I did, I happened to look in the corner of the room. Sitting there beneath that dim light bulb, with a piece of white cloth, a piece of red cloth, another shirt and his bamboo needle, was my friend, Mike Christian. Sitting there, with his eyes almost shut from his beating, making another American Flag. He was not making the flag because it made Mike Christian feel better. He was making the flag because he knew how important it was for us to be able to pledge our allegiance to our flag and country.
Duty, Honor, Country. We must never forget the millions of Americans who, with their courage, with their sacrifice, and with their lives, made those words live for all of us.
This year, as we pause to remember those men and women currently serving their country, as well as our family and friends who serve before us, we need to remember the sacrifices of people like Mike Christian who made this Nation what it is today.
Mr. President, America today has the most powerful, most capable and best-equipped military in the history of the world. But none of this would be possible without the brave men and women who…
Mr. President, America today has the most powerful, most capable and best-equipped military in the history of the world. But none of this would be possible without the brave men and women who volunteer to serve in the Armed Forces, who accept any challenge and face any danger to protect their country on battlefields around the world. Each of them is a volunteer--no conscription, no draft. They have a genuine desire to serve, and they do so with great sacrifice with great honor, great courage, great commitment, and often with great sacrifice.
Time and again, our Nation has called its sons and daughters to put themselves in harm's way, and many bear the scars of battle forever. Despite the rhetoric of praise that we hear again and again, too often when their service ends, these veterans are forgotten, except on Veterans Day. We have consistently underfunded the veterans' health care system. The Veterans' Administration is now preparing plans to close veterans' hospitals in New England and across the Nation. They oppose allowing disabled veterans to receive disability benefits if they also receive military retirement compensation.
As troops continue to serve in Iraq, we need to make sure we can take care of them and their families, especially when they return home. We have a solemn responsibility to those who are willing to sacrifice so much. We do them a grave injustice when they return home to be cast aside. Today, tens of thousands of newly discharged veterans are unemployed. National Guard and Reserve soldiers face lower wages and possible job loss while they are deployed. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, USERRA, protects soldiers from employment discrimination, but service members can have difficulty enforcing their rights.
We can't have any more situations like the one at Fort Stewart, where Guard and Reserve troops were housed in deplorable accommodations, with unacceptable access to health care and needed services to heal their injuries. Such neglect is no way for a grateful Nation to honor its armed services. We can and we must do better.
For generations, we have honored our fallen veterans on November 11 each year. The Armistice Agreement that ended the First World War was signed on this historic day in 1918--the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month that year. Many of those we honor today have fallen in battle in Iraq.
Last week, I attended the funeral service of a Massachusetts soldier who gave his life in combat there and was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery. It was a beautiful fall day and the military ceremony was conducted with solemn dignity and utmost reverence. It was a very moving moment to be there with his family and friends and veterans of his unit. His parents have lost a son, and the Nation has lost a hero. As the bugler played taps, and the sounds of the rifle volleys from a final salute faded across the Arlington hills, it was moving to see that the veterans there had also lost a brother, although none of them knew the fallen soldier personally. The brave paratrooper who had tried to carry his dying comrade to safety during the attack was also there. His silent presence spoke volumes about the valor and dedication that our service members give to our Nation every day, and have given us throughout our history ever
since that day at Concord Bridge, when the embattled farmers stood and fired the shot heard 'round the world.
On Veterans Day 2003, we thank our veterans. We remember those who have given the last full measure of devotion to our country, and we affirm our support for all who now wear the uniforms of our armed forces. We give thanks to all who have served America so well in years gone by, and to all the brave men and women serving now in the ongoing war against terrorism. And we pledge, in words that too often pass and are soon forgotten, to do a better job of meeting our responsibility to them every day, not just on each November 11. May God give us the strength to make each day a Veterans Day.
Bill Text
Latest available legislative text
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1014 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1014
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs in the management of health care services for veterans
to place certain low-income veterans in a higher health-care priority
category.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 7, 2003
Mr. Corzine (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) introduced the following
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs in the management of health care services for veterans
to place certain low-income veterans in a higher health-care priority
category.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE PRIORITY FOR
CERTAIN LOW-INCOME VETERANS BASED UPON REGIONAL INCOME
THRESHOLDS.
(a) Change in Priority Category.--Section 1705(a) of title 38,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by inserting ``(A) who are'' after
``Veterans'';
(B) by inserting ``and'' after ``through (4)''; and
(C) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, or (B) who are described in section
1710(a)(3) of this title and are eligible for treatment
as a low-income family under section 3(b) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)) for the
area in which such veterans reside, regardless of
whether such veterans are treated as single person
families under paragraph (3)(A) of such section 3(b) or
as families under paragraph (3)(B) of such section
3(b)'';
(2) by striking paragraph (7); and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (7) and in
that paragraph by striking ``paragraph (7)'' and inserting
``paragraph (5)(B)''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1710(f)(4) of such title is
amended by striking ``section 1705(a)(7)'' and inserting ``section
1705(a)(5)(B)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take
effect on October 2, 2002.
<all>