Veterans Identity and Credit Security Act of 2006

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to speak on two

different areas. I hope we get to both in this hour. This is a Special Order that has been organized for some of the Democratic freshmen, the new Members of Congress, and I rise first to say that I am very pleased to participate in this and to have helped organize it.

This is the third of our Special Orders, and we have done this because we do believe as new Members we come from a very diverse group. Many of us served at the local and State level. We come from very different backgrounds. Some of us are lawyers, some in academics, and some are ranchers. We are really very active members in our community, but we bring with us this experience at the local and State level, yet a fresh perspective on some of the major debates of the day.

We certainly bring with us a commitment to making sure that our homeland is as safe and secure as each and every American expects it to be, and that is certainly our first and foremost commitment. I and my colleagues really wanted to speak this evening both about the security of our homeland and also about our commitment to those men and women who have served this Nation in the armed services. Particularly as a Nation at war, we have tremendous respect for those who are actively serving, but want to remember as well that as they come home and that others who came before them also have a right to expect we will meet our commitments and our promises to them.

So what we are going to do first, we are going to try to split this hour, if we can, between the two different topics. So I will ask my colleague, John Salazar, a freshman, a veteran from the great State of Colorado, to speak. He has really been an outspoken leader amongst the freshmen on the issue of veterans.

So I will just close by saying that I am the daughter of a veteran. My father served in the Korean War. And I can tell you that my very first memory as a child was my father returning home when I was 5 years old. He came to school, I was in kindergarten, and he came to the public school to pick me up, and my brother, who was a year ahead of me in school, to greet us after not having seen him for 2 years. This man in uniform arrived at school, and I can tell you honestly that I did not recognize him.

So I also speak as a family member of a veteran. And I hope that we do have the opportunity this evening to talk about the sacrifice not only of our men and women in service but of their families as well. Because certainly the families are also committing themselves and sacrificing as well. And we do know, and I know we will talk about this, that the process of healing and of reinvigorating both the family and the veteran when they are back home is something that we all want to be committed to.

So I would like to now turn over the conversation, and I hope we can have a bit of dialogue, because I am joined my two of my colleagues, John Salazar, as I said, who is going to talk about a number of issues; and then Russ Carnahan from Missouri is also going to join us. We may be joined by others as we go through the evening, but the three of us, I hope, will able to have this conversation about our commitment and our belief in our promise to veterans of this country.

Mr. Salazar.

Well, I thank you, Mr. Salazar, for laying out some of the issues before us. As you know, I serve on the Budget Committee, and so we have had this debate about the Veterans Administration, veterans health care in particular.

And it is so easy for people to stand up for veterans. We all do this. On Veterans Day we go and visit with our veterans. I know for you it is probably true, for me as well, I will be stopped sometimes on the street by a veteran who will tell me about his service and who will feel strongly and deeply committed.

One little aside, if I may. I actually brought three veterans together who had not ever received their medals. One actually was receiving the medal for a deceased brother who had never gotten it. It was a really wonderful moment. They brought their families. One brought three generations with them.

What was interesting is they all started talking to each other, and I asked if they knew each other, and they said, no. Two of them had actually served in World War II and one had served in Vietnam. So they didn't even know each other, yet there was a comradery and an understanding and a commitment and a caring they had for each other that was so clearly expressed. It was a wonderful moment to acknowledge their service to this country.

But those are the good moments, I think, when you interact with veterans. But there are the other ones where they say, What is going on with the veterans health care I get? I am

standing in line for my prescription medicine. I have to pay more. Are there shortages? Why does the Veterans Administration not have the resources that it should when we have the President standing up both with active servicemen and with veterans and they voice respect. We have got to turn that respect and commitment into the hard dollars that say we are going to meet these problems for the Veterans Administration.

We have a Veterans Administration hospital in Philadelphia that does a fine, fine job. But I can tell you, and I give some credit to Congress on this, that we did already increase the level of funding for the Veterans Administration from what the President had proposed. So already we said that is not adequate. We will not accept that budget. And we spoke up for veterans. But nonetheless, there are not cuts this year, but there are cuts in later years for the Veterans Administration. So that is certainly not meeting the commitment that even if we do not cut it this year, we are cutting it in future years. That means that the Veterans Administration, veterans hospitals, will not be able to know that they are going to be able to be there for veterans when we have now veterans coming back, of course, who are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So we are going to see some real shortfalls, and you may speak to this as well, but we are seeing a proposal by the President again this year to add fees for veterans when they come for health care, that they should have to pay. We have had to fight this enrollment fee once a year. They have to pay that. They have to pay additional fees when they see a see a physician. And we know that many of our veterans have come back with serious injuries, with certainly mental health problems, which I know you will want to talk about a little bit later as well. But in serving on the Budget Committee, we have been able to make some of these changes. We have to give some of the hard dollars, but I think really the issue here is that they are such big numbers but if we are talking about a number here of $8.6 billion below the funding that we saw previously, those are real dollars in the care and attention that our veterans deserve. And they will see the effects unless we fight back and demand that we are going to meet this commitment to veterans.

Mr. Speaker, not to interrupt, but if I may reclaim my time, I want to talk about the number of veterans. My staff did a little bit of work here to just say that there are six States that have over 1 million veterans in their State alone. And in Pennsylvania, we have the fourth highest number of veterans in our State. We have over 1 million veterans in Pennsylvania alone. And I can look up Colorado. I am sure the gentleman will be interested. There are 427,000 veterans in Colorado.

I should check Missouri too because we have Mr. Carnahan with us. And we were talking about over 500,000 veterans.

So these are actual people living in our States asking for asking for health care, as you say, on waiting lists, going to the pharmacy, being asked to pay for more prescription drugs, being asked to pay an enrollment fee to get their health care, and not assured that they are going to get the kind of health care that you are saying is really lifesaving.

Mr. Speaker, this is one area where I think we, in the broader sense, certainly the military itself, the different branches, have recognized better than they have ever before that there is actually very serious stress-related illnesses and recognize that and try to make some services available. I think that in the years past, we basically said you come back from war and just go home and get a job and go back to your family and you will be fine. And, in fact, our young men and women, and they are young and women, we are talking about 19, 20-year-olds, 21-year-olds, some who have had some life experiences before but they are being put in a very difficult position, being asked to make very tough choices. They perform admirably. They perform wonderfully. We are proud of each and every one of them.

But many of them use such strength to do that while they are in harm's way and then come back and say now, how do I think about what I have done for the last 18 months, the last couple of years, how do I integrate that with the life I have now? So they are coming back in larger numbers. Some of the statistics of mental health experts indicate that between 17 and 26 percent of our troops returning from combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may experience symptoms of post traumatic stress syndrome, and what that means is that they deserve and need counseling; that counseling should be made available through the Veterans Administration. And when we see cutbacks, it is just unacceptable to think that we might actually leave a veteran with that kind of serious disorder really on their own.

And that is really what we are experiencing. And I know that we, as Democrats, have brought up amendments to try to address that to make sure that there are counseling services available, more active services available, mental health services. These are, as we know, illnesses that we really need to make sure, particularly in a post-deployment situation, that they receive screening and diagnosis and that no one goes without the care that they actively deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) to talk a little bit about the VA employees.

I think the gentleman makes a really both good point too, that in fact one of our responsibilities, and I just heard the debate earlier on how to be civil in our disagreements, and there is strong disagreement between the two members who were speaking, but they were certainly civil.

But this is one where I think again the rhetoric about our support for veterans is fairly universal, and I think that is a good thing. But we have to build on that to find a way to meet this commitment and to be realistic about what this commitment means. The commitment means that we not only make a commitment for this year, but we do a budget for 5 years and we make a commitment for 5 years, and we say to the veterans hospitals that you are going to have the resources. We say to veterans that you won't have to wait 6 months and you won't have to pay a 40 percent increase in your fees that you are paying.

It gets complicated. We have all probably had calls in our offices about different levels of disability and what you get paid or what you don't and how you get your care through the Veterans Administration. It is complicated, and maybe that is appropriate.

But certainly from our point of view, I think you are right, this has to be a commitment that we make as Democrats and Republicans, because certainly when our men and women go to war, they are not going as Republicans or Democrats, they are going as Americans, and our commitment has to be to veterans, all of whom are Americans, all of whom deserve not just our respect, but the hard core services that we have told them they will get and they should be able to get.

I very much agree with you that we have to find those dollars and we have to find them in a responsible way. All of us up here are for a balanced budget, but this is not about spending money we don't have. It is about our priorities and making sure we put those dollars in priorities as we articulated them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and you are more than welcome to stay with us if you are willing to as we switch gears.

Let me first of all let me thank you for sharing your personal story. I think that it is important for us to think about what compels us to do what we do. Sometimes sharing a personal story, we don't always remember to do it. So I thank you for your willingness to do that. I hope that all of us are fortunate enough to have parents that inspire us. You were fortunate certainly in that.

We did want to take the discussion about that and talk about another area that we are deeply concerned about, and certainly has been very much a topic of concern for all of us here in Congress and I think for all Americans, and again certainly as I go around my district, I am well aware of the fact that we are in changed world.

Since 9/11/2001 and the terrorist attacks on our Nation, we recognize, if we didn't before, but certainly for most Americans we recognize that we are under a threat from terrorism in this world and that we have a responsibility, and here we speak again about responsibility, but we have a responsibility not just to talk about the fear maybe or the reality of that fear, but to actually talk about what can we do about it. How can we do more to make sure that our homeland is safe and what do we mean by that.

It is taking the very real challenges and the tragedy of 9/11, and I will say also the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, and whether in fact we were as prepared as we needed to be. Did we respond as comprehensively as we should have. I think most of us believe we did not, that there was more that should have been done.

But we need to take these tragedies and we need to say, to examine very, very clearly, and make a clear cut assessment about whether, in fact, we are doing all that we can to make sure that we are more secure.

That means being sensible. I think that is what I would really like to talk about this evening, is not just spending the dollars, because we have spent quite a bit of Federal taxpayer dollars on homeland security initiatives.

We have to make sure that as a Federal Government we can work with the local, and State officials to make sure that we are secure where we are vulnerable. That means making the right kind of assessments, sharing what works across jurisdictional lines, and demanding that kind of assessment and a plan for readiness. I come from an area, I representative southeastern Pennsylvania, part of the City of Philadelphia, part of the suburbs, so my region is home to a major seaport, a major airport, a major rail station. We are multi county and tri-state. We are talking about literally not just a million and a half people who live in Philadelphia, but the millions of people who come in and out of the city to work every day, roads and highways.

We are talking about volunteer fire companies in some of the suburban part of my district, and a major urban city fire company. We are talking about police that work in a rail station, we are talking about police who work in the city, we are talking about suburban police officers, we have State police.

These are numerous jurisdictions, all of who have had to try and figure out what is the best way for them to be prepared in the case of some kind of tragedy, such as a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. And I want to be, I guess I want to say positively, is that we have taken this seriously and we have done much more than we might have.

But where the failure is is the lack of leadership from the Federal Government to help make sure that we have the right kind of assessments done in each of our vulnerable areas. I mentioned our ports, I mentioned our rail stations, I mention our airports, and that we are providing the guidance and instructions and the assistant at the local levels, and the dollars and resource that they need to make sure that they are prepared, so we are not duplicating where we do not have to, we are being smart where we have to.

I will give one example, then I would just ask my colleagues to take an area that they might be interested in. I would like to have a little bit more of a conversation. But one of the areas that I have been particularly concerned about is one called interoperability. It is one of those terms I am not sure I even knew about a few years ago.

But the fact is, that it is one that we use much more. This is how we get, how we communicate, how our emergency personnel will be able to communicate in a disaster.

And the fact is that in the analysis after 9/11, one of the things that we knew is that we did not have a way for all of our emergency personnel to talk to each other, to communicate. We do not, in fact, know how many firefighters or police officers might have been saved if we could have actually communicated in the Towers, the World Trade Center.

We know that even here in Washington, we heard stories afterward, that the Capitol Police could not talk to the city police, because they do not have a way to communicate. So I have been working locally with the regional subway system, because the fact is, that our city police cannot talk to the rail police underground.

Now, that is very upsetting to hear about. If we had to call SEPTA police, that is our Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority police, as capable as they may be, if they need to call in for back-up, this is not a scenario that we cannot imagine, because unfortunately we have seen it happen in London, we have seen it happen in Madrid, we have seen most recently a rail tragedy in Bombay, India.

So we know this can happen. But we do not have an ability right now for them to be able to talk to each other. And I think that is unacceptable. I think that the Federal Government should have said, here are the best ways to do it. We have looked at it. We have examined it. This is the way it has been done elsewhere. Those are options that you have. This is a spectrum we will dedicate to emergency responders and be able to have them talk to each other, and here are the dollars to make it happen.

In fact, their application was denied. You know, I do not understand that. I do not understand how the Federal Government can say it is not a priority, that our fifth largest city's transit system does not meet this requirement. It is not acceptable.

And we can give example after example of these situations. We had big issues with the port security and whether we actually inspect all of cargo. We do not. Are we doing the assessment on foreign ports? We can use the example of ports. We can use the example of even in the airports where we spend serious dollars, not all of our cargo is inspected.

And yet, we still go round and round whether enough is being done, where are the regulations, where are the help we need from the Federal level. We have issues around identity cards. The Port of Wilmington, not far from me, did a demonstration project. And we still just, after Congress was pushing the administration, finally got them to decide what that national security card would look like for people, for workers going into our ports.

So I am, I mean, I can probably take up the next 20 minutes all by myself. But I will not do that. But as a new Member, we can bring our commitment to securing this country. But we also bring maybe a little bit of impatience and outrage because we are new at this. I come in and I say, wait a minute, it is 5 years since 9/11. We just got a report from the 9/11 Commission. There were far too much Cs, Ds and Fs on that report of what has not yet been done.

So we can be critical. This is less about being critical than figuring out a way to make it happen and to get it done. Because my constituents, your constituents are counting on us to demand that accountability from our administration, to demand that effectiveness from these dollars, and to make sure that we can say back to them, this is the plan we have for assessing our risk, this is the plan that we have for meeting the demands to meet that and reduce that risk, and here is what we are going to do to make sure that we have the resources, the trained personnel and the equipment and the know how to make sure that we are as safe as we possibly can be in this country.

It is just not acceptable to do any less than that. So with that bit of introduction, if I may, if my colleagues want to join me. There may be some local issues that you have as well. But I think each and every one of us can point to ways in which our own communities need to be more secure, how we can learn from each other and how we have to recognize the shared risk that we have for some of the greatest vulnerabilities that we have in this country.

If the gentleman would yield, I think you have raised a really good point here. I am on the Budget Committee, and when I saw that in fact we saw port security cut and this was just after the scandal about whether in fact we would allow our ports to be managed by a foreign company, which I think raised some benefit of that discussion in that it raised real awareness I think for many Americans where we think about our airports of course because of 9/11, and there is work still to be done there. But we found that, and in fact we do know better how we can do port security, but I also have some of the numbers that show that in fact only 6 percent of containers entering U.S. ports are screened.

Now, you have some debate about whether to do 100 percent or not, and there are many of us who think we have to do some kind of screening of every bit of cargo. But 6 percent, what is that about?

Well, when I visited the port in Philadelphia, one of the things that people said to me, and it is interesting that the more we have assurance that the port of origin does the kind of screening that they need to do, that we have a relationship with that port and that nation, the better off we are, that we can be secure before cargo leaves the port of origin before it even comes here. First of all, it will speed things up because I hear from my business people that the longer cargo sits in the port, every day they lose money. They pay for that cargo the minute it leaves the foreign port, that costs them money.

So we have to be more efficient about this, but we have to get it right as well. And, again, here is where some technology can help, here is where, as I understand it, that we have only 20 people in the Coast Guard who are assessing security at 135 foreign ports. Well, that can't be adequate. That can't do what we know we need, which is to make sure that the screening as the cargo gets loaded in foreign ports before it even gets here is making us more secure.

So, again, we have learned certain things in the last 5 years. That is the good thing. But we have to put that knowledge to work to make sure that we can move commerce through our ports and also be secure. We have to be anticipating the real risks. We can't just be looking backwards.

I appreciate the comments, and it is a perspective that wasn't on my list of things mentioned. So I appreciate that. I think that is an important aspect, that we are self-sufficient, that we are able to take care of ourselves, certainly in an emergency that we are prepared.

And I think that you also raise a really good point about the training that we need for our first responders. Mr. Carnahan I think mentioned that we all go and visit our fire companies and police. And I will say here again, the good news is that they recognize the need for more training and equipment. They have said to us, and they sometimes proudly say this is the additional training. I have a group in part of my district that has joined together to talk to each other, to do emergency management training, because they realize particularly in the suburban part of my district, probably have it more so in some of the rural parts of our country where you really aren't going to be able to manage it all alone, so you need to be able to work with other fire companies, with the counties even to be able to call them in, to be able to know what to do in that.

And we just had some very serious flooding in this country and certainly in my area just outside of my district, but I went to visit anyway. And one of the things they said to me was they were very proud of the fact that, because of the planning they had done, they were better prepared than they had ever been before. And that was a really important thing. They said they had never before set aside a command center, that they knew exactly who was supposed to staff that command center. They knew who to call, who would bring the food. They had the volunteer services that could be helpful. But they also knew who and what kind of equipment in adjoining areas that could really help them get right on top of things right away. And they know

that that eased the urgency of the situation for many of the people who lived in that area.

And yet, again, we need to make sure that the Federal Government, this is what the Department of Homeland Security was set up to do, was to make sure that we don't have everyone just reinventing the wheel. That just shouldn't be the way it is. It is not the most efficient use of money. We should be making sure that there are countywide plans, that there are statewide plans, that there is a sense that maybe not everyone needs to have every piece of equipment. How do you actually join together? Do you do that across regional lines? Who do you call and how do you make that work?

But we have seen in fact a cut in some of these security grants. And how can that be, when in fact we can all say that we are not finished with this task of making sure that we are as secure as we need to be in this country.

So I open it up to some of the comments you may have in some of your own experiences in your own districts.

And just on the port, I was very much a part of the argument in that regard, too. And I think again it brought some greater attention to the fact of port security and both what has been done positively and what more we need to do. But to think that after 5 years we have still only appropriated 16 percent of what the Coast Guard has told us they need to enhance port security over the next 10 years. I mean, this is something they are telling us, their expertise, this is what we need to do. And the President actually proposed eliminating $173 million in port security grants.

I argued that and presented an amendment to the Budget Committee to restore some of those grants. One of the things that happens, I was going to call it a trick, I suppose that may not be the nicest thing to call it, is if you put all these grant programs together and cut it, you can say I didn't really cut that particular program; I just put these three or four grant programs together and reduced the overall amount and someone else can decide later what we are going to cut. That is still a cut.

We have to understand that there are very serious issues before us. Again, I think we are talking about being fiscally responsible here--we have a priority and what we actually want the dollars to do, the right things that we really need to do.

I do want to mention the earlier remarks because there was something I also learned from the visits in my district, and that is, that this is an identity card. We have talked a lot about that in different circumstances, but one in which we all agree on, Republicans and Democrats, is that we will have a worker ID card. We actually understand we were not sure what should go into that, the information that should go into it, who should produce it, how it can work. We have literally then tens of hundreds of thousands of workers coming in and out of our ports every day across this country, and yet, the idea that we are going to scan all this cargo but then anyone can just come in and out of the ports, driving a truck, is something I think certainly not something any of us find acceptable.

So, in fact, it has taken 4 years and Congress has had to push this administration really, really hard. There has been pressure from Congress to get the administration finally just really recently to approve and decide what that card would look like.

Now, I think that should have been years ago. I am grateful it just was done, but I think it speaks to our responsibility as Members of Congress to keep asking the tough questions, demanding that accountability, demanding that high performance and demanding that high level of government provide the leadership to our local communities, to our ports, to our airports, to our rail, and not just to walk away and take too long.

One of the things we do not want to have happen is for us to say let us keep waiting, let us keep waiting, and then have some tragedy happen we were not prepared for, fully knowing that we could have been prepared if we had taken quicker action.

No. These are just for workers. These are for people who are employed by the ports or employed by a company that is actually coming in and out of the ports. These are for the workers.

The problem is they do not go through the screening as much then. These ID cards get very sophisticated. They have a lot of information on them, but the idea here is that anyone who is working in a port, and as I understand, there are workers who actually go from port to port or go from different destinations, so some of this is also, again, to keep the commerce flowing. The idea here is not to make things more difficult, to be able to actually move things more efficiently, more quickly, but to do so with a sense of security because we have the technology to do that.

So this is basically a little more information, but it is like showing any kind of driver's license, or it is a special ID that says, yes, you have been screened, you have gone through the background checks to allow you to work in a sensitive area. This is something that is important to our ports and our airports as well, and that the workers who work there every day actually have an ID card that can be scanned quickly and that they can actually be able to flow back and forth very easily but that we can be secure it is someone who we know will not engage in any kind of criminal behavior, let alone terrorist behavior.

Maybe that is a good way to sort of wind up the conversation we are having, but first let me say, I think we are all saying thanks just out of tremendous respect for the great work that has been done by our police and our firefighters and our emergency personnel, and they are on the front lines, and they are getting additional training. They are working very hard to make this happen.

As I said, I have been impressed locally at some of the work that has been done in their planning, but the 9/11 Commission just simply, I think, as Democrats, we have said our first priorities would be to address some of the shortcomings, and that includes interoperability for all of our first responders, fire and police personnel.

Second, it would be to coordinate local, State and Federal emergency response planning, that we would make sure that the administration provide local and State governments with the tools and the guidance to better secure our communities and make sure communities are secure and that we ensure that the administration makes strategic and risk-based decisions about how our homeland security dollars are spent so that we are smart, we use common sense and that we use these dollars in the most effective, wisest way possible.

In that way, we can stand up here and I hope we can months from now, a year from now, be able to say, you know, we got these things done because it was not just a broad rhetorical commitment, it was putting our dollars, putting our expertise to work for the American people to make sure that our homeland is as secure as we all deserve.

With that, I want to thank the gentlemen who joined me this evening for your willingness to do the freshman Special Order, and I look forward to being able to do it again, possibly in September, but thank you and thank you for your commitment to both the veterans of this country and also to the homeland security needs of this Nation.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition in these waning hours of the 109th Congress to provide a summary of the good work accomplished over the last 2 years on behalf of America's veterans, and to comment on comprehensive legislation that is now pending in the Senate. I provide this summary in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a title I will soon pass on to my friend, Senator Danny Akaka of Hawaii.

Before the 109th Congress convened, I made a decision to serve as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

for two fundamental reasons. The first and most important was that our country was at war and continues to be at war, and a nation at war, with hundreds of thousands of young men and women having spent extensive tours overseas in hostile lands, fighting for our country, deserves the full attention of the Senate. Many have died during the course of combat operations. Others have been seriously wounded. Thousands more will transition out of the military service in the coming years and will attempt to reenter the workforce or go to school under the Montgomery GI bill. There simply was no greater calling than for me to assume the leadership role to ensure our Government was effectively assisting the current generation of America's veterans and their families.

Second, I have always been nonplused, I guess, at the characterization that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs was a ``B'' committee. This characterization exists despite these facts. Mr. President, 24 million Americans have served in the military and are potentially eligible for VA-administered benefits. In addition, VA will soon have a budget over $80 billion, which is one of the largest and fastest growing budgets within Government. And finally, VA has the second largest Federal workforce of any Government agency.

Therefore, it was my goal to elevate the committee's profile and the importance of the veterans' benefits and services by embarking on a course of vigorous oversight and legislative effort and, I believe, accomplishment.

It is my humble opinion that I share the credit with 13 other members of the committee. One of them is here on the floor with me, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who also served not only on the authorizing committee with me but chairs VA MilCon and has played a critical role in veterans issues. We have been diligent and active participants of the committee, and the business of this committee, in my opinion, has been extremely productive in the last 2 years.

The committee held 52 hearings during the 109th Congress. From the start, our focus was on the combat wounded, the combat deceased, and their families. We held a hearing on the difficulty that surviving spouses have in getting timely and effective, consistent information regarding their benefits following the active-duty death of their loved one.

We held several hearings on whether returned combat veterans are provided with a seamless transition--many of us have heard those words used--from active duty to civilian life. We are still working with DOD on that, to make sure it is truly seamless.

We focused on medical and vocational needs of our severely wounded. We examined the research being done within the VA to advance our understanding of various diseases and disabilities confronting veterans in the hope that advances in medical science and technology could one day improve their lives. And there is clear evidence today that that very thing is happening.

The committee was particularly active in examining VA's budget needs, and no one can argue about the high priority this Congress placed on funding the VA system.

The total VA budget will have increased from approximately $63 billion at the end of fiscal year 2004 to over $80 billion upon enactment of a fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill, an increase of 27 percent.

In addition to resources provided, this Congress has put in place a system of accountability to ensure that the appropriations provided to VA are being used to meet the needs of those who rely on the vital health care provided by VA facilities around the Nation.

By law, VA now submits quarterly reports to the Congress on its budget that contain a comparison between VA's planned expenditures and actual expenditures.

More importantly, VA is required to include quality indicators in this report, such as the percentage of primary care appointments scheduled within 30 days of a patient's desired date.

I am confident that the Congress has the mechanisms in place to know, on short order, if VA's budget needs are outpacing its resources, and is therefore equipped to take swift remedial action if necessary.

On the legislative front, the Senate has continued to do the work expected of it by the men and women we serve and represent. Let me give a quick accounting of the legislative provisions that were enacted into law during this Congress:

First S. 1234 and S. 2562. In both the first and second sessions of the Congress, cost-of-living-adjustment legislation was enacted to increase the rates of disability compensation and survivors' compensation. Benefit rates were increased by 4.1 percent for 2006 and will be increased by 3.3 percent for 2007.

Second, Traumatic Injury Protection under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, T-SGLI. In many instances the wives, parents, and other family members of servicemembers who are traumatically injured incur substantial financial obligations in order to spend time with their loved ones during recovery periods at military hospitals.

Under the provisions of Public Law 109-13, those traumatically wounded since the start of OIF and OEF as a result of combat wounds are eligible for financial payments which range from $25,000 to $100,000 for qualifying injuries, depending on severity. To date, more than 2.500 wounded servicemembers have received payments as a direct result of this legislation.

As of December 1, 2005, all servicemembers and Reservists insured under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program are also covered under the T-SGLI benefit. The coverage extends to all qualifying injuries regardless of whether injuries are incurred as a result of combat.

Under the provisions of H.R. 3200, the maximum coverage for members of the Armed Forces and veterans of the Service Members Group Life Insurance and the Veterans Group Life Insurance benefit was increased from $250,000 to $400,000.

The bill, as enacted, also requires that spouses be notified when members insured under T-SGLI elect less than maximum coverage or designate a beneficiary other than the spouse or the children or the child.

In fiscal year 2006, the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 1815, under provisions of H.R. 1815 and as a result of veterans committees oversights, the Department of Defense was directed to provide customized integrated information to survivors of those killed on active duty about their future Federal benefits through an Internet Web site.

I was amazed when we started these hearings that we were still dealing with a hodgepodge of approaches of how we dealt with the surviving spouse of a lost one.

DOD was also directed to develop a uniform policy on providing casualty assistance to survivors. I would like to especially thank Senators Warner and Levin for their cooperation on that bill.

Also under H.R. 1815, a provision was adopted to prohibit military funeral honors and burial in VA national cemeteries and in Arlington National Cemetery to any person who is convicted of a Federal or State capital murder for which a sentence of death or life in prison may be imposed

We had an example of a fellow from Maryland who had killed two elderly people and was sentenced to death, died in prison, and was buried at Arlington. This provision was adopted following our committee's oversight and hearing of that double murder that I just expressed. I will speak more to my colleagues about the status of the double murder incident in a moment.

In June of 2006 President Bush signed into law S. 1235, a bill to help severely injured servicemembers in their transition from the military to their civilian lives. It authorizes VA to make grants available--ranging from $2,000 to $14,000--to assist with housing adaptations on a family member's home in which a severely disabled veteran is living.

It allows servicemembers, who have been legally determined 100 percent disabled when they separated from the military, up to 2 years from that date to apply for premium-free Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage. Finally, it enables them to convert their coverage to Veterans' Group Life Insurance, or an individual plan or policy, during the same 2-year period.

As to H.R. 5037, undoubtedly most of my colleagues are aware of the fringe

group which has used its protected free speech rights to deliberately disrupt funerals of our military heroes. That is why the Senate voted unanimously to put reasonable restrictions on demonstrations at VA cemeteries and Arlington National Cemetery.

An amendment was put forward on the floor of the Senate balancing the rights of grieving families to a dignified funeral ceremony; the rights of private property owners who live near cemeteries to be free from overly intrusive Federal laws; and the rights of demonstrators to have their message heard. The amendment was accepted, the bill was passed, and it is now Federal law.

In addition to the bills already enacted into law, the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs have agreed on a comprehensive substitute amendment to S. 3421, which has cleared the House and awaits Senate action. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

S. 3421, the ``Veterans Benefits. Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006,'' contains provisions that would: enhance veterans' health, education, memorial affairs, and other benefit programs; improve VA's information technology infrastructure; authorize the construction of needed VA medical facilities; improve services for homeless veterans; remove the remains of a convicted double murderer from Arlington National Cemetery; and, I am proud to say, repeal an outdated and paternalistic law that limits the ability of veterans to hire an attorney to represent them during the VA claims process.

While a fuller accounting of the provisions of S. 3421 can be found in the Joint Explanatory Statement language accompanying the amendment text in the Congressional Record--and I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Explanatory Statement be printed in the Record along with the text of the substitute amendment to S. 3421,--I will make a few remarks about three provisions of note that I have championed.

Mr. President, currently, veterans and other claimants seeking veterans' benefits may not hire an attorney until the VA administrative proceedings have been completed--a process that often takes several years.

That law flows from a Civil War era policy intended to protect veterans from unscrupulous attorneys. That policy arose at a time-- unlike today--when attending law school was not required to become a lawyer and there was no effective professional oversight of lawyers.

In recent months, it has become abundantly clear that many veterans and their survivors want the option of hiring an attorney to help them navigate the increasingly complex VA system. In fact, the prohibition against veterans hiring attorneys is considered to be unfair and outdated by a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations, including veterans' organizations, veterans' advocates, judges, law professors, and bar associations.

For these reasons, I am very pleased that a compromise version of legislation I authored was accepted that would allow veterans to hire attorneys after a veteran files a Notice of Disagreement with VA's initial decision on their claim.

A provision of S. 3421 will enable the spouses of seriously wounded veterans to obtain educational assistance benefits sooner than they have ever been able to before.

The need for the educational assistance provision was brought to my attention by U.S. Army SFC Jeff Mittman, a young man who was blinded after an attack in Iraq and is being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Sergeant First Class Mittman's wife would like to begin receiving educational assistance benefits from the VA while her husband undergoes treatment in order to improve her job opportunities once he is officially discharged from service, but is now prevented from doing so by law. If enacted, S. 3421 would remove that barrier.

Finally, S. 3421 would remove the cremated remains of a convicted double murderer from Arlington National Cemetery.

In the summer of 2005, we learned that the remains of a brutal murderer--Russell Wayne Wagner--were placed in the Nation's preeminent military cemetery, Arlington National Cemetery.

I was appalled to discover that the law enacted in 1997 to deny capital offenders from burial in national cemeteries did not apply to Wagner.

This was also quickly brought to my attention by the Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski. We joined together in that effort. The answer was it couldn't happen, it couldn't be removed because of the law.

While we moved swiftly to close the loophole that permitted Wagner's burial in the first place, the question remained: Should his remains continue to be included among the scores of honored dead in Arlington? For me and Senator Mikulski, who joined me in this effort, the answer was ``no.''

That is why I am so pleased that S. 3421 would direct the Secretary of the Army to remove Wagner's remains from Arlington.

As I stated last summer, we must not dishonor the sacrifices made by those memorialized at our Nation's military cemeteries by including among them individuals who, through their own heinous acts, have grievously dishonored themselves because at another time in their life they were veterans.

S. 3421 is an impressive assortment of legislation. It contains the collective work of more than 44 Senators. I want to take some time to single out a few of them.

Senators Burr and Obama for their work on the homeless assistance provisions of the bill; Senators Hutchison, Feinstein, Graham, Landrieu, and Murray for their work on the construction provisions; Senators Thune, Salazar, and Burr for their work on the rural health components of the bill.

And lastly, the committee's ranking member, and a true friend of veterans, Senator Akaka.

I ask my colleagues for their vote. And I thank every Senator on the committee and in the Senate for their support in seeing this, and all of the other veterans' bills, through the Senate.

I also want to thank my House colleagues, in particular Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member Evans, and Acting Ranking Member Filner. We were able to come together in the spirit of compromise in the final hour on some key provisions, and it is a fitting way to end this Congress.

As we head into a new Congress, I want to extend my best wishes to my friend, and soon-to-be chairman, Senator Akaka. It has been a pleasure working with a Senator of his quality, and I pledge that as ranking member I will strive to emulate the kindness, cooperation, and ``aloha'' that he showed me during my time as chairman of this great committee.

I yield the floor.

I thank the gentlewoman and thank you for your commitment to our veterans in this great country.

Mr. Speaker, this country owes no greater debt of gratitude than it does to its veterans and military service personnel. Throughout the history of this great Nation, men and women have heard the call to service and have done so to defend freedom and democracy. I would like to take this time to personally express my gratitude to our veterans and our military men and women serving right now in places near and far around the globe.

When these brave men and women sign up for service in the military, our government makes certain promises to them, promises that are all too often forgotten or neglected later on. They are promised lifelong health care within the VA system, they are promised educational benefits, and they are promised that their spouses will be taken care of if they are killed in action or die from a service-connected cause. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we are holding up our end of the bargain.

Let me just address a few of the failures that we have seen this year. Let me talk shortly about the budget shortfall.

This Congress, over the past year and a half, has been witness to monumental failures at the VA. First, we watched the VA come up short in its 2005 budget. We were told that the administration had not anticipated the number of claims from returning soldiers. A $1.5 billion budget shortfall is simply unacceptable.

I was happy when we passed emergency supplemental funding for our veterans which was not impaired. We cannot forget that part of the continuing cost of the war on terrorism is providing for our veterans. With that in mind, I offered an amendment to the Iraq war supplemental we passed earlier this year. In this bill, setting out billions of dollars for the ongoing cost of the war on terrorism, I asked for a mere $630 million to ensure that the VA did not fall short on its budget again this year. This amendment was ruled out of order during debate on the bill.

What is out of order, Mr. Speaker, is the short-sighted nature of the decision made by the majority and the administration. That $630 million seems like a small price to pay for mental health services, prosthetic research, and administrative support for those men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially when the VA is still seeing more returning servicemembers than they anticipated.

Let me talk briefly about the second failure, that of theft. On May 3, a lap-top containing the personal information of 26.5 million veterans and 2.2 million active duty service personnel was stolen from the home of a VA employee. This sheds light on a severe problem within the VA. It took 19 days from the date of the theft for VA to notify Congress and the public.

I introduced H.R. 5588. This would allow for fraud alerts, credit freezes, credit monitoring, new notification requirements for VA, and it would require the VA to establish a new IT security protocol. The House Veterans' Affairs Committee marked up, just this last week, H.R. 5835, the Veterans Identity and Credit Security Act of 2006. It helps protect veterans by offering an assortment of credit protection tools, credit freezes, fraud alerts, monitoring, and it centralizes the VA IT security with a new Under Secretary position and new notification requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania to talk a little bit about the budget shortfalls within the VA system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.

If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, today I would also like to address the issue of backlogs, and I would like to mention another troubling fact that we are facing with the VA backlogs. We have patients that are seeking medical attention and they are on waiting lists, and these waiting lists can take as long as 180 days to get through. Can't we do better than 180 days?

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you a story about a friend of mine, classmate of mine in high school, who served in the military at the same time as I did. He called me when I was a State representative Colorado and mentioned that he couldn't get in to see a VA doctor and that he was having massive chest pains. And it was shortly after that that we were finally able to get him into the VA hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico. And we were lucky because what the doctors told him was that if he had not gotten the immediate medical attention, he would have died within 5 days. They performed heart bypass surgery, five bypasses, the next day.

So it scares me that nearly 25 percent of the cases that are waiting have been pending over 180 days. I think this means that almost 100,000 veterans in this country have been waiting to find out how they can access the system. And I do not think that that even begins to account for the hundreds of thousands of vets waiting just to get in to see a doctor. Mr. Speaker, I think this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I thank the gentlewoman, and that is correct. In my district alone, I have 75,000 veterans that we service.

When the VA actually made the original budget, they had figured that they would treat one out of every five veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan for mental disabilities. It now turns out that they are treating one out of every three.

So with that I would like the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania to talk a little bit about the mental health and the posttraumatic stress disorder that veterans have when they come back from such terrible wars.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk a little bit about our GI Bill of Rights for the 21st century.

The promise that was made to our servicemen and women with respect to education, I think, should be kept. As it stands now, Reserve and National Guard soldiers are not eligible for the same educational benefits as active-duty personnel. This disparity of access is simply unacceptable. Currently, close to 50 percent of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are National Guardsmen and Reservists.

House Democrats are introducing the new GI Bill of Rights for the 20th Century to honor the bravery of our troops and the tremendous sacrifices that their families have made. The National Guard and Reserves have made extraordinary contributions, making up about 50 percent of the troops in Iraq.

The new GI Bill of Rights honors that contribution with provisions that protect their income, to help more than 40 percent of those call up who have suffered pay cuts to serve our country. We

have had stories of families that are struggling because they are not making the same amount of money since the spouse left and he is off fighting a war and taking a pay cut. Stories of soldiers losing their homes and families out on the street. I think this is totally unacceptable.

It also expands military health care to provide full access to TRICARE, the military health care program, to all members of the Guard and Reserve and their families for a low fee.

Finally, the package improves recruitment and retention incentives and bonuses for the reserves so that they are more equitable relative to those of the active-duty components.

Not only is this just and fair, I think it is necessary, given the recruiting and retention problems facing the Reserve and National Guard these days.

While I am proud to say that House Democrats have taken the lead on this issue, we will not be able to realize this reform without the support of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I look forward to working with all Members of this House, as well as our Nation's military and service organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just tell you a little story of someone who was my hero, and that was my father. He was a World War II staff sergeant who served during the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

When he was 82 years old, he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. As the disease progressed, he slowly started to forget things. But about the age of 84, one morning we were sitting around my mother's kitchen table there and we heard my father fumbling back in his bedroom, and he came out shortly after that and in his hand he had his World War II staff sergeant uniform. He told us, ``I want to be buried in this uniform.''

We are taught not to argue with Alzheimer's patients, so we said, ``Sure dad, no problem.'' But as the disease progressed even more and more, he started forgetting more things. But every now and then he would bring up the fact, ``Please, I want to be buried in my uniform.''

Anyway, at the age of 86 he suffered a massive heart attack. My mother called me and I rushed over to the house, and I remember that when I picked him up from the floor to put him on the gurney to take him to the hospital, with the very last ounce of strength that he had in his body he reached up around my neck and he told me that he loved me, and the very last word that my father ever said to me was ``uniform.''

We buried my father in his uniform. But to many veterans, the only thing that they have to hold on to is this great country, because they served with such pride and passion. So it is our duty as Members of Congress now to keep our promise to those veterans.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I commend my colleagues for their work and dedication to preserving the benefits of our Nation's veterans. We must never forget the sacrifice that they have made in the defense of freedom.

On a personal note, I would like to express my most heartfelt gratitude to Congressman Lane Evans, our distinguished ranking member on the Veterans Committee. Lane is a Marine who fought hard for veterans, and he has been a true inspiration and mentor to me in my first term here in Congress. I know that I will miss him, as many of us will, and I wish him the best of luck in retirement.

In the transportation committee, we have asked for an $18 million supplemental to construct an above-ground tunnel for the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. These are the folks that actually do the first responder training in many instances. You have seen the bombings of the subways in Europe, and you look at how vulnerable we are here in this country. And being able to construct that tunnel, we can train our first responders in such a way that we don't have to interrupt our subway services.

But I would like to talk a little bit also about something that is very near and dear to my heart when it comes to national security. I think that one of the most critical issues in national security is to make sure that this country never becomes dependent on another country to produce our food, as we have become dependent on other countries to produce our oil. So it really bothers me when, for example, in the ag committee we who are there to represent agriculture begin cutting programs that actually keep farmers and ranchers on the land, and farmers and ranchers who produce the greatest food supply in the world. And so I think that is critical. We must make sure that farmers and ranchers stay on the land and we have an adequate food supply.

You saw what happened when, during the first Gulf War when Saddam Hussein's troops had to give up because they didn't have enough food to eat. Let that never happen to our troops.

Can I ask a question here. This identity card that you are talking about, is this a biometric type of ID system, and will every American have to carry that?

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6314) to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain expiring provisions of law and to expand eligibility for the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance program.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today I rise and urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 6314, a bill that would extend several existing Department of Veterans Affairs benefits provisions.

This bill will extend these provisions of health care services to veterans exposed by chemical and biological testing under Projects 112 and SHAD, and treatment and rehabilitation programs for seriously mentally ill and homeless veterans until December 31, 2007. The bill would also extend VA's homeless grant and per diem programs until September 30, 2007, and extend additional services for mentally ill and homeless veterans until December 31, 2007. It would extend VA's Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, as well as the program which is providing government markers in private cemeteries until that date.

The work/study provisions of the legislation allowing veterans to assist VA and other government agencies would be extended until June 30, 2007. The work/study program is an increasingly popular benefit that provides veterans with an alternative use of their GI Bill if they choose not to go to college.

The bill also provides education benefits for the family members of severally injured veterans who are undergoing long-term convalescence while on active duty. Spouses and children of servicemembers who are determined by the VA to be permanently and totally disabled due to a service-connected cause or causes would be eligible to receive Chapter 35 education benefits while the servicemember is still on active duty while undergoing treatment. This Chapter 35 provision would enable spouses and dependent children of severely wounded servicemembers to access their Dependents' Educational Assistance benefits while the servicemember is going through extended convalescence prior to discharge.

Under the current law, these beneficiaries must wait until the member is discharged, and since the spouses of these members most often become the primary breadwinner, I believe it is important to give them as much of a headstart as possible on becoming more competitive in the job market. The amount of the benefit remains the same.

I thank the Blinded Veterans Association for bringing this important issue to the attention of myself and members of the committee. We met with Army Sergeant 1st Class Jeffrey Mittman and his wife Christine. Sergeant 1st Class Mittman was blinded by an IED and is undergoing extensive rehabilitation and facial reconstruction.

Madam Speaker, this young soldier is articulate, has a very positive outlook on his life and is truly an inspiration. One look at his wife and you can immediately pick up the burdens she is bearing in caring not only for her husband, but also for her children. His wife Christy is a model of the love and support that she is providing to her husband as they face these challenges together. In fact, I think of this as the Christine Mittman provision, a provision not only that would help Christy, but also other spouses lessen the financial stress.

So, in essence, while Christy is providing leadership and mentoring for her children, caring for her husband instead of waiting until he completes all of the facial reconstruction and rehabilitation necessary, she can start her educational opportunities now.

I think this is the right thing to do. We all know he is going to be 100 percent disabled. She wants to become a nurse, so let's give her and others who are likewise situated to have these opportunities.

Madam Speaker, the committee is currently also undergoing bipartisan negotiations on a number of bills, not only with my House counterparts, but also with the Senate counterparts.

Among these bills are H.R. 3082, the Veterans Small Business and Memorial Affairs Act of 2006. It passed the House on July 24, 2006. We have informally been discussing provisions since July 28. The bill improves the status of veterans and disabled veterans small businesses when competing for contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs. It allows Tribal government to participate in the VA's State Cemetery Grants Programs, authorizes the VA Secretary to provide the family of a veteran interred in a private cemetery with government markers, which we are doing now. It also requires the Veterans Employment Training Service, otherwise known as VETS, to establish nonmandatory guidelines for disabled veterans outreach programs. There are a lot of things in this bill, and I am hopeful we are going to get this done and negotiated.

There is another bill, H.R. 4061, the Department of Veterans Affairs Information Technology Management Improvement Act. It would centralize VA's IT organizational structure so that it reports directly to the Department's chief information officer.

Ultimately, the bill would empower the CIO with the authority over the IT budgets, equipment and personnel. While the House passed this bill with widespread bipartisan support, and I appreciate the leadership of Mr. Filner and others on this legislation, the Senate is even yet to take action on that bill.

There is another bill, H.R. 5815, the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Authorization Act of 2006, that would ensure that we will efficiently provide the right facilities with the right places for veterans' health care. Given the current veteran population and those which we can expect in the coming years, it would authorize $2.5 billion for major implementation projects and $51 million for facilities leases. This is an important bill, and we are getting close on these negotiations.

We have another bill, H.R. 5835, the Veterans Identity and Credit Security Act, as amended. This bill requires notification to Congress and individuals in the event of a data breach. All of us Members understand and remember the data breach.

And we had extensive oversight on the committee. Mr. Filner and I were able to lead over eight hearings in a 6-week time frame, and we are perfecting change in our cooperation with the administration. This is a good bill and I am hopeful that we can get this bill done.

This bill also included a scholarship and loan repayment program to provide the Secretary with a recruitment and retention tool to attract qualified people in the areas of information technology and management so they can work in these security areas. As I said, this bill received widespread bipartisan support here in the House and I am most hopeful that we can move to the Senate and achieve our work

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend Mr. Filner for his comments.

You are absolutely right. We have a lot of good work product that hopefully we can get done.

At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to a friend of America's veterans, the Honorable Michael Bilirakis. Michael will be retiring and leaving us here at the end of this Congress, and his work and leadership will be missed.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. We will have one more opportunity, I am hopeful, to speak about Mr. Bilirakis' efforts.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the First District of South Carolina, the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Henry Brown.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Ms. Berkley, I want to thank you for your leadership on this bill. Thank you for working with Nancy Johnson, Jeb Bradley. This symbol of honor and remembrance is very important. I want to thank you for that.

Also I want to embrace your words regarding the leases. In the construction bill we have a number of leases, and we need to complete our work. And so I embrace your words. I call on you for your help. The Senate has not been as helpful. You know that is a continuous body over there. We do not know how it is about to be reorganized. We have a lot of our work that needs to be done over the last 2 years, and we cannot let this construction bill die on the vine. We have to complete that work.

If we do not re-up these leases, it is going to cost the Federal Government more money because there are penalty clauses that will go into effect, and we cannot and should not let that happen.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

I thank the gentlewoman for her contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Honorable Tim Murphy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Filner for his cooperation on this bill and other bills. Mr. Filner, we have got the CIO bill, we have got the cyber security bill. The Senate sent us two health bills, a benefit bill and we have got the construction bill. So all of these are in negotiation with the Senate. It is hard work. It represents 2 years of effort.

Recalling the recent words of my esteemed colleague, Nancy Pelosi, with the creation of this new theme of a bipartisan way for all Americans, let's embrace it. Let's get our work done. We enjoy bipartisanship on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I wish other committees could see how well we have worked together over the years. I call on leadership of everyone here in the House in dealing with these bills here on veterans affairs to complete our work on behalf of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I also call upon the Senate leadership to finish our legislative negotiations. Let's complete our work. Let's not forget our veterans and their families. And, Mr. Speaker, I also call upon the leadership of the veterans service organizations and the military service associations to encourage the Senate leadership to finish our negotiations and again finish the work that we had started on behalf of this Nation's veterans and dependents.

These warriors fought for our freedom. The least we can do is complete our work and provide for them the best care and benefits possible. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no furthers requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Senator Craig has done an outstanding job of making sure the laws that weren't working, where we were not doing what we should be doing to help our veterans, were changed.

He has worked a long time on the bill now coming to its final passage--finally. He has been working on it for 2 years, that I am aware. He has done a terrific job. There is a lot of authorization that is essential to go forward next year on appropriations.

I appreciate the work of the Senator. He is retiring as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and going to ranking member. I know his working relationship with the new chairman is such that we will continue to see progress in this area.

military construction appropriations

I will talk about the continuing resolution being passed by the House in a few hours that will be sent to the Senate. We will send that bill to the President to meet the midnight deadline so Government can continue to function.

I am talking tonight about this bill with very mixed feelings because I am chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs and Related Agencies, and I wanted to pass the full bill, the appropriations for military construction, and I wanted to make sure we covered our veterans' needs. It is an important subcommittee, of which I have served as chairman these last 2 years. I have worked with my ranking member, Senator Feinstein, to assure we had the funding we needed. Senator Feinstein and I were ready to go on our bill. It passed in September. It is a bill that passed unanimously in the Senate. I know everyone agreed we had

covered the bases that need to be covered to do what is right for our military--active duty and the veterans--who have served our country in the past.

Unfortunately, our full bill is not going to pass. It is not going to pass because, first, it was held up in the Senate for appointing conferees, held up by a few Senators who thwarted the majority. I was very disappointed we lost those weeks. Our Appropriations Committee chairman Thad Cochran tried, as I, to pry the bill out so we could go to conference and work with the House.

Finally, this week, through the leadership of Senator Frist and Senator Stevens from Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, we were able to alleviate all of the concerns raised and get the bill to conference.

Then, unfortunately, the members of the House committee had determined we did not have enough time to conference the bill. I think we did have enough time. We had the time to do all of the construction that should be started right now. However, that is not going to happen.

I would not have allowed this bill to go forward, and I would be speaking against it right now if we did not have a provision in the House-passed continuing resolution that will give budget transfer authority to the Department of Veterans Affairs so that there will be no medical need, no service need, no payment to any veteran that will not be made before this continuing resolution runs out.

If that provision had not been added in the bill, we would not be passing this bill tonight because I would be talking all night to keep it from passing.

I called the Secretary of Veterans Affairs this afternoon, and I asked him if he could assure me that there would be enough money in the accounts from which they could transfer to assure that all of the medical needs, including surges in medical needs, would be able to be given. The Secretary assured me that is the case. The Secretary said they had enough surplus money, enough rainy day fund money, and enough money in the other accounts that they would not hurt the other accounts and they would be able to transfer. He did say that by the time we got to February 15, if we didn't have a full bill, they would be beginning to run into trouble. He gave me his word--and I know his word is good-- that if they see some shortfall that would start happening before February 15, and if there is no bill, he would call me immediately, and we would begin to work on a supplemental approach.

I am certainly going to trust his word. Secretary Nicholson has been a man of his word throughout these years I have worked with him. He is a veteran himself, a distinguished veteran. He knows the veterans issues. He cares about veterans. He will call, as he did last year when he saw a looming shortfall and he asked for help and we gave him the help to assure the veterans' needs would be met. We are going to cover it, and we are going to do it in a way that will assure that the medical care is given.

I have to say, I am disappointed we are going to adjourn without completing the full bill, without completing the military construction so it can start right away, without completing the appropriations and the priorities that we are putting in the next year for veterans. I know they will not suffer in any way because Secretary Nicholson assured me of that.

I will be watching. I will be staying on top of the VA's financial situation throughout this period that the continuing resolution is going to run, to the middle of February. If a problem arises, I will not stop advocating for the supplemental appropriation that will be necessary to assure we have the funding we need.

We will work together in this Congress to assure that the men and women who are protecting our freedom, as we speak today, get the quality of life they deserve. We will continue to work together to assure that the veterans who have served our country, who have answered the call of our country, are given everything to which they are entitled and which we owe them.

I am going to be the ranking member of this subcommittee next year, having served as chairman for 2 years with a wonderful ranking member, Senator Feinstein. It has been pure joy. She has a wonderful staff. We have never had a disagreement that couldn't be worked out. We have made sure the priorities, which are the same for both of us, have been met. I will be a loyal ranking member, and I hope the new chairman will have the same relationship and the same overall goal for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs that Senator Feinstein and I have had. I believe he will.

I am going to vote for the continuing resolution. However, I could not be more disappointed that we did not pass the full appropriations bill for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. I know the veterans will be taken care of, and I know the military construction will begin with the new starts a couple of months late. We will get those projects done with that small delay. I am going to make it my priority to assure that happens.

Senator Stevens has come to the Senate. I want to say, in addition to Senator Cochran, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye have been the advocates for our military throughout the time I have been in the Senate. I am honored to be a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. I know those two leaders work together, as Senator Feinstein and I do, and that is with one goal: to make sure the military, who are in harm's way, who are fighting so we may speak freely in this Chamber, who are fighting for our children and grandchildren to have the freedom we enjoy and that has been given to us by generations past, will have the opportunities they deserve, and that is the quality of life that we can give them.

I thank the Senate for coming to the end with this continuing resolution. I will support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would just like to clarify, with the Senator from Alaska on this subject, that the Senate did act. The Senate did pass our bill, and we did appoint conferees, and it was a lack of willingness on the part of the House to have conferees meet with the Senate. His disappointment is the same as mine.

I am going to start working on January 4, when we are sworn in to the new Congress. And I hope we can take the bill that has been passed unanimously by the Senate and work through the appropriations process and pass this bill before the continuing resolution is ended on February 15. We do not have to wait until February 15. And once the committee is constituted, and we have a chairman and a ranking member, I will be the ranking member, and I will work with the chairman. And I hope we can pass this bill because it is in very good order and it was unanimously supported by the Senate. And I think we are pretty close to what the House passed. I think, with a strong will, we will be able to come in before February 15 and start those projects about which the Senator from Alaska just spoke.

So I will look forward to working with him in the new year, both for Defense appropriations and for this Military Construction bill and the Veterans Affairs bill and the military quality of life that is in the bill that we passed in the Senate earlier this year.

I thank the Senator.