Native American Veterans Cemetery Act of 2006

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge my colleagues to support our veterans, current servicemembers, and their families by supporting S. 3421, an omnibus veterans measure entitled Veterans Benefits, Healthcare, and Information Technology Act of 2006.

This measure is a compromise agreement between the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and is based on several pieces of legislation. Like all compromises, no one got all he or she wanted, but in the end, I believe that it represents a good package of provisions. This legislation would improve and expand a wide variety of services to our veterans, and includes provisions relating to veterans benefits, health care, and information technology matters for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of particular importance are provisions to enhance mental health and readjustment services for veterans returning to civilian life, to improve long-term care services for aging veterans, and to modify the State veterans' home program.

At the outset, I note my dissatisfaction with the undue haste with which the legislative package, the bill itself and the accompanying explanatory statement that my colleague, the committee chairman, Senator Craig, will include at the end of his remarks, was assembled.

Because of the way this legislation was negotiated, we were not able to reach final agreement on its contents until Wednesday morning, just two days ago. At that time, the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for the first time agreed to negotiate on a particular provision passed by the House relating to a construction project in South Carolina. As a consequence of his belated agreement to enter into discussions, we were able to arrive at a compromise, a result that we could have achieved in September.

Because the final agreement was reached so late in the session, staff of the two committees and from the two Offices of Legislative Counsel, worked many long hours trying to accomplish the nearly impossible task of assembling the bill, which is over 160 pages, and then drafting an explanatory statement on the legislation.

In the best of times, such a process can easily take a week or more. We were forced to try to do it all in just 2 days. It is near certainty that this haste has led to the inclusion of errors in both the legislation and the explanatory statement, errors which could have been caught and remedied had there been sufficient time. This is certainly no way to do our business and, to the extent it will be in our power, we will not legislate this way in the future.

That said, the bill is now before the Senate, and I will touch on some of the key provisions.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has been tasked with meeting the needs of those who serve in the military, with a particular emphasis on those injured during their service. A number of provisions in the compromise agreement are intended to help VA fulfill that obligation.

Often, the types of injuries endured in combat are invisible in nature. We must make sure that returning servicemembers receive the readjustment and mental health care services they need for a seamless reintegration to civilian life. Provisions in the compromise agreement seek to do just that by establishing VA systemwide guidelines for screening primary care patients for potential mental health issues, as well as appropriately training clinicians to carry out mental health consultations. Identifying the need for assistance is the first step; this measure also provides for the next step by ensuring that VA has the capacity to furnish mental health services at every VA community- based outpatient clinic.

Because veterans often seek readjustment counseling and other mental health care in their own communities, it is imperative that VA's veterans centers are able to provide needed services. The compromise agreement contains provisions, derived from S. 716, legislation I introduced which cleared the Senate nearly a year ago, which would authorize resources needed by

veterans centers to carry out their long standing mission of helping veterans. These provisions would also help ensure that VA has sufficiently trained outreach workers to encourage veterans to seek assistance. Veterans centers provide veterans with a safe place to turn for readjustment counseling or assistance; they make over 100,000 referrals a year for benefits and VA medical services. In addition to providing counseling services to veterans, family members too can find solace at veterans centers. This legislation would clarify that parents of those servicemembers who have died would be eligible to receive bereavement counseling at veterans centers.

The compromise agreement also addresses the goal of encouraging and supporting alternatives to institutional long-term care. It includes provisions derived from S. 2753, a bill I introduced, that was designed to promote assistance to those who look after veterans, especially in noninstitutional, home-based settings. The relevant provision in the compromise agreement would authorize VA to carry out a pilot program to assist family members who care for their disabled loved ones. Caregivers, particularly those who live in rural and geographically remote areas, would receive a helping hand through services such as adult day care and respite care.

Furthermore, the compromise agreement seeks to ensure more appropriate payment for the cost of long-term care provided to certain seriously disabled veterans who are receiving care in State veterans' homes. In January 2006, the committee held field hearings in my home State of Hawaii. Tom Driskill, the president and CEO of Hawaii Health Systems Corporation, testified about the soon-to-be-built State home in Hilo. He said, ``The synergy of a combined Federal and State funding of the home has been the catalyst for making this dream a reality.'' The adjustments this legislation would make to the current cost-sharing arrangement between VA and the States, which are derived from S. 2762, legislation I introduced, will help ensure high quality care in State homes not only in Hawaii, but across the entire Nation.

Currently, care is provided at no cost to the veteran when VA provides institutional, long-term care services to those with service- connected disabilities rated 70 percent or higher in a VA nursing home or a private nursing care facility with which VA contracts. However, when the care is provided in a State veterans' home, VA pays only a per diem to the State, which then may bill the veteran for the remaining costs. This measure would provide for the same payment to State veterans' homes that is provided to community nursing homes.

This compromise agreement also includes a provision from a bill I introduced, S. 1537, that would authorize VA to designate at least two Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence and six Parkinson's Disease Research, Education and Clinical Centers. VA centers of excellence have been the model of innovation in the delivery of highly specialized health care and research for chronic disease in the veteran population. Providing a statutory basis for these centers will ensure continued research and development of progressive treatments to help reduce symptoms and improve the quality of life for veterans battling with these neurological diseases. This provision is especially significant as it will be part of Congressman Lane Evans' legislative legacy, as ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It is fitting that we pay tribute to his service through this measure. I thank my good friend and colleague for his leadership on this issue and for his service to our great Nation, as a marine and in Congress.

The compromise agreement includes a provision that would allow VA to extend its State Cemetery Grants Program to tribal organizations. This change, derived from my bill, S. 2659, would allow for the establishment, expansion, and improvement of veterans cemeteries on trust lands. If enacted, it will enable veterans living on trust lands to have an option for burial much closer to their family members and other loved ones.

Another provision in the compromise would authorize VA to provide home loan guarantees to veterans who want to use their home loan eligibility to purchase stock in a cooperative housing corporation. Under current law, VA is authorized to guarantee loans for eligible veterans and their survivors to build or buy a home, including residential condominiums. In many large cities, housing cooperatives make up a large percentage of available affordable housing. This provision, derived originally from legislation introduced by Senator Schumer, would give veterans greater housing choice by allowing them to use their hard-earned benefits to buy shares in a housing cooperative.

In response to the concerns of some individuals, the provisions in the compromise agreement related to allowing veterans and other claimants to hire attorneys to represent them before VA have been modified from what originally passed the Senate earlier this year, so as to allow individuals to hire attorneys only after a notice of disagreement has been filed in a case. This change should result in there being no impact on the claims adjudication system until after VA renders its first final decision. Currently, veterans are prohibited from retaining counsel until after the Board of Veterans' Appeals renders a final decision.

Additionally, I am pleased that we were able to reach a compromise on information security matters. I remain committed to ensuring that VA takes aggressive action to protect our veterans' personal information, and in the event of a data breach, that they provide the affected veterans with appropriate identity and credit protection services.

I also express my satisfaction at our success in maintaining the provisions in current law which prohibit the use of appropriated VA health care funds for conducting public and private cost comparison studies. This prohibition protects veterans by precluding the use of scarce health care dollars for other purposes and protects VA employees from efforts to privatize their duties.

This legislation is appropriate and needed at a time when our service-members are in harm's way. We must always remember the sacrifices that our servicemembers, both past and present, have made on behalf of this great Nation, and we must do our part to respond to their service by remaining strong in our support of veterans services.

I am proud that our committee continues its tradition of bipartisanship. The effort that produced the final version of this legislation, vital to the continued provision of quality health care and benefits to our Nation's veterans, is just the latest example of that spirit. I thank Senator Craig for his leadership and for his cooperation and assistance. I also thank the staff of the majority, especially Bill Cahill, Jon Towers, Amanda Meredith, Helen Walker, and Lupe Wissel, as well as those on the Democratic staff, Kim Lipsky, Alexandra Sardegna, Dahlia Melendrez, Ted Pusey, Michelle Moreno, and Bill Brew for their hard work on this legislation.

At this time, Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to wish my warmest aloha to Senator Jim Jeffords, who is retiring after 32 years in Congress. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs will be losing one of its finest and most esteemed members. A veteran himself, Senator Jeffords has been a strong voice and advocate for veterans. I thank Senator Jeffords for his service. He will truly be missed.

I urge my colleagues to support this compromise agreement on behalf of America's veterans and their families.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 22, 2006, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Reauthorization of the Iran Libya Sanctions Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold an Executive Session to begin at 2 p.m. on Thursday, June 22, 2006.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 10 a.m. The purpose of

this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2747, to enhance energy efficiency and conserve oil and natural gas, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on Energy Security in Latin America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing on a nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 10 a.m., in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting voting out the report on the Indian Lobbying Misconduct Investigation, and other pending matters.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The agenda will be provided when it becomes available.

I. Nominations: Brett L. Tolman, to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah.

II. Bills: S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006, [Specter]; S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, [De Wine, Graham]; S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes, [Schumer]; S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006, [Specter, Feinstein]; S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006, [Lugar, Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden]; H.R. 1036, Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act, [Smith-TX]; S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005, [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]; S. 2703, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 [Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Kennedy, DeWine, Feinstein, Brownback, Durbin, Schumer, Kohl, Biden, Feingold]; and S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2005, [Ensign, Kyl].

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006, to mark up pending VA legislation:

The markup will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

The bills to be considered are:

S. 2562 (Chairman Larry E. Craig), the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost- of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006'';

S. 3421 (Chairman Larry E. Craig), A bill to authorize major medical facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

Committee Print of S. 2694 (Chairman Larry E. Craig), the ``Veterans' Choice of Representation and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2006''. The Committee Print contains the following provisions:

From S. 2694, as introduced: Attorney representation in veterans benefits cases before the Department of Veterans Affairs;

From S. 2659 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): Eligibility of Indian tribal organizations for grants for the establishment of veterans cemeteries on trust lands;

From S. 1759 (Chairman Larry E. Craig): Requiring the Secretary of the Army to remove the remains of Russell Wayne Wagner from Arlington National Cemetery;

From S. 3069 (Senator Christopher Dodd): Extending the provision of government grave markers;

From S. 2416 (Senator Conrad Burns): Expansion of education programs eligible for accelerated payment of educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill;

From S. 3363 (Senator Mike DeWine): Accelerated payment of survivors' and dependents' educational assistance for certain programs of education;

Original Provision (from Chairman Larry E. Craig): Extend reporting requirement on the operation of the Montgomery GI Bill program;

Original Provision (from Chairman Larry E. Craig): Reducing amounts available for State Approving Agencies in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 paid from VA's readjustment benefit account;

From S. 2121 (Senator Charles Schumer): Residential cooperative housing units;

From S. 1252 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): Supplemental insurance for totally disabled veterans;

Original Provision (from Chairman Larry E. Craig): Reauthorization for use of certain information from other agencies;

Original Provision (from Chairman Larry E. Craig): Clarification of correctional facilities covered by certain provisions of law.

From S. 1537 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): Establishment of Parkinson's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence.

From S. 2634 (Chairman Larry E. Craig): Sections (a)(1) and (b)(1) of it the bill pertaining to Term Limits for the Positions of Under Secretary for Health and Under Secretary for Benefits.

From S. 2762 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): Requirement for VA to pay full costs for certain service-connected veterans residing in state homes, provide medications for certain service-connected conditions to veterans residing in state homes, and create a limited authority for the Secretary to designate certain beds in non-state facilities as state homes for purposes of per diem payments.

From S. 2433 (Senator Ken Salazar): A provision to create an Office of Rural Health in the Office of the Under Secretary for Health at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

From S. 2753 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): A provision to authorize a pilot program to provide care-giver assistance and noninstitutional care services.

From S. 3545 (Chairman Larry E. Craig, Ranking Member Akaka, Senators Burr and Obama):

Improvements to services, housing, and assistance provided to homeless veterans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 22, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``The AT&T and BellSouth Merger: What Does it Mean for Consumers?'' in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The witness list is attached.

Panel I: Edward E. Whitacre Jr., Chairman and CEO, AT&T Inc., San Antonio, TX; F. Duane Ackerman,

Chairman and CEO, BellSouth Corporation, Atlanta, GA; James F. Geiger, President and CEO, Cbeyond Communications, Atlanta, GA; and Jonathan L. Rubin, Senior Research Fellow, American Antitrust Institute, Washington, DC.

Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. the Subcommittee on Clean, Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on the regulatory processes for new and existing nuclear plants.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a field hearing regarding ``Lessons Learned? Assuring Healthy Initiatives in Health Information Technology.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 574, a bill to amend the Qunebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 to increase the authorization of appropriations and modify the date on which the authority of the Secretary of the Interior terminates under the Act; S. 1387, a bill to provide for an update of the Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, to extend the authority of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, to authorize the undertaking of a special resource study of sites and landscape features within the corridor, and to authorize additional appropriations for the corridor; S. 1721, a bill to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes; S. 2037, a bill to establish the Sangre De Cristo National Heritage Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; and S. 2645, a bill to establish the journey through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area and for other purposes.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic Development be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 10 a.m. on the state of the U. S. Tourism Industry.

Mr. President, today I join my friend and fellow cochair of the Senate National Guard caucus, Senator Pat Leahy, in introducing bipartisan legislation to strengthen one of our Nation's most important military and civilian resources--the National Guard.

The Guard has a long and proud history of contributing to America's military away game, while providing vital support and security to civil authorities in the home game. Since September 11, 2001, our citizen- soldiers have taken on greater responsibilities and risks from fighting the war on terror to disaster assistance.

Today, the Guard supports the Nation's military strategy overseas, functions as a primary line of defense here at home, and helps local responders deal with overwhelming natural disasters.

We have seen the tremendous value of Guard forces as they confront terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other hotspots, and as they provide water, food, and health supplies to victims of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters.

More than 1,300 guardsmen from my home State of Missouri were deployed in less than 72 hours following Hurricane Katrina, providing medical, transportation, airlift, military police, engineering, and communications capabilities. For example, the 139th Airlift Wing evacuated 23 critically ill young patients from Children's Hospital in New Orleans and brought them to Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City for the high-level care they needed.

Stories such as this were repeated all over the country in most if not all our States.

Why was the Guard successful when other elements of the Katrina response were not? Quite simply, the Guard is the entity best organized and trained to initiate and coordinate a civil response to any disaster on the scale of Katrina.

In addition, more than 200,000 Guard troops have left their homes, their

jobs, and their families to participate in another critical mission: the global war on terror. The National Guard has provided as much as half the combat force and 40 percent of the total force in Iraq.

I point out that the Guard is a tremendous value for the capabilities it provides. It gives 40 percent of the total military force for around 4.5 percent of the budget. Whether at home or abroad, the men and women of the Guard are performing their duties with honor and valor, often at great sacrifice to their families and their own lives. As they willingly make these sacrifices to preserve American lives and freedoms, we have a responsibility to support them as they carry out their unique dual mission.

While serving abroad, National Guard troops serve under Air Force and Army commands under title 10 status. But when the Guard operates at home, they serve under the command and control of the Nation's Governors in title 32 status.

There is a lot more we can do to make this work more smoothly.

Despite their importance on the street, as it were, the Guard is often given short shrift back at Pentagon headquarters, which has proposed repeatedly to cut Guard personnel and equipment budgets.

The Guard will play a critical role in response to another terrorist attack or natural disaster, but the Pentagon has allowed its equipment levels to sink to dangerously low levels. Currently, the National Guard has only about 35 percent of the equipment it needs. In Missouri, only one of two engineering battalions that were requested to assist with Katrina could respond because the other one did not have the equipment they needed.

With the support of 75 of my colleagues, Senator Leahy and I led an effort to increase equipment funding for the Guard by almost $1 billion. We are going to continue that fight this year to ensure the Guard has equipment it needs to carry out both missions.

Just a few months ago, the Army proposed significant cuts to Guard troop strength. Three-quarters of the Senate again joined us in a letter opposing this, and I thank all of our colleagues who joined us.

We need to do more to empower the Guard. We need to give the Guard more bureaucratic muscle. Time and again, the Guard has had to rely on Congress, not its total force partners in the active duty, to provide and equip fully the resources it needs to fulfill its missions.

That the Guard is left out of the Pentagon decisionmaking process is beyond dispute. In the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review, during the BRAC review process of 2004 and 2005, when the Army and Air Force reduced National Guard force structure in 2005, and when equipment levels of the Army and National Guard reached the dangerously low levels of 35 percent, Congress has had to step in.

To remedy this, the legislation we introduce today to strengthen the Guard consists of three central planks.

One, we will allow the National Guard Bureau to establish more formal relationships with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs.

We will give the Guard more muscle in existing relationships, elevating the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a four-star position and providing a seat for him on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It goes without saying that to be a part of a big decision, you have to be at the table. Having a four-star Guard general providing advice to the SECDEF instead of a two-star major general will give our governors and 450,000 citizen-soldiers and airmen access to the highest level of the DOD and ensure key policy decisions are heard and taken into account.

To put things in perspective, the Active-Duty Army has 12 four-star generals and 46 lieutenant generals. The Air Force has 13 four-star generals and 35 lieutenant generals. The National Guard, which represents over 40 percent of the entire force structure, is represented by three lieutenant generals and zero four-star generals.

Can anyone tell me with a straight face how the Guard one four-star general and an additional three-star will endanger our national security? The only element endangered would be the Pentagon status quo which is outdated.

Facts are stubborn things. Clearly, the facts demonstrate a glaring, disproportionate number of three- and four-star generals in the Army and the Air Force when compared with the Guard.

Second, we will ensure that the Deputy Commander of the Northern Command is a member of the Guard, a new command with the mission of coordinating responses to emergencies within the United States.

The Guard is the entity best suited to respond to major incidents, and they need that capability. With both the Guard and NorthCom's missions being defense of the homeland, it only makes sense to have substantive input through a lieutenant general as deputy commander.

Finally, we must ensure the Guard plays a role in identifying and filling any gaps between civilian emergency response capabilities and those of the military. Current DOD policy prohibits procurement of supplies or equipment for providing military support to civilian authorities during emergencies except with the permission of SECDEF. That policy is outdated. It will give the National Guard Bureau, in consultation with the State adjutant generals, the budgetary power to research, validate, and make those equipment purchases.

Neither the homeland support nor the military support missions of the Guard are likely to diminish. They are needed more now than ever. But we must strengthen the decisionmaking capability of Guard leaders within the Department of Defense.

As we heard today from General Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee when he was asked questions by Senator Inouye, he responded with a football analogy. When we asked him if he was in the huddle, he said he was ``not in the huddle'' during the QDR.

This legislation would empower the Guard to respond in the affirmative the next time it is asked, ``are you in the huddle'' on this major decision.

I thank my colleagues for their past support. I ask for their support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that congressional findings regarding National Guard Forces be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on comprehensive, bipartisan legislation reported from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and now awaiting full Senate approval. S. 2694, the Veterans' Choice of Representation and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2006, contains 28 provisions representing the collective

work of 44 Senators who either sponsored or cosponsored bills that were incorporated into this important legislation.

S. 2694 includes provisions that would improve educational assistance benefits for veterans and their survivors; reauthorize and enhance various programs of assistance for homeless veterans; reduce nursing home and prescription medication costs for service-disabled veterans residing in State veterans' nursing homes; enhance memorial affairs benefits and preserve the character of Arlington National Cemetery as a shrine for our honored dead; and, as the bill's title suggests, provide veterans with the freedom to hire attorneys to represent them during the VA claims process. I will take a few minutes to describe the sections of the bill that I sponsored, none I am more proud of than the choice of representation provision. For a full accounting of all of S. 2694's provisions, I ask my colleagues to read Senate Report 109-297.

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 joined with Senator Lindsey Graham in introducing legislation to end the outdated, paternalistic restriction on the freedoms of veterans. Section 101 of S. 2694 would repeal the existing prohibition against veterans hiring attorneys to help them obtain benefits from VA. I am delighted that we are closer to doing away with this outdated law and allowing veterans like all other adults in this Nation--to have the assistance of counsel if they so choose.

Title V of S. 2694 represents the first effort in 5 years to enact comprehensive homeless veterans' assistance legislation. Five years ago, Congress set an ambitious goal to end homelessness among veterans by 2011. I am not one who sets goals lightly, especially one so important. Therefore, I joined with Senators Akaka, Burr and Obama to craft the provisions in title V which will both improve services for homeless veterans, and help prevent chronic homelessness among our servicemen and women returning from the war on terror. Among other things, this measure would extend the authorization of appropriations for comprehensive services for homeless veterans, reauthorize a grant program for homeless veterans with special needs, and extend the authority of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans. It would also extend the authority of VA to transfer properties it obtains after foreclosures on homes financed with VA-guaranteed loans to organizations which assist homeless veterans and their families in acquiring shelter. Finally, the bill would authorize appropriations for a program designed to prevent homelessness by providing financial assistance to eligible entities to provide and coordinate the provision of supportive services for very low-income veteran families occupying permanent housing.

I want to be clear, however, that I will be monitoring whether these programs are having the effect we expect them to. In March, I held a hearing on the needs of homeless veterans, at which VA, its Federal partners, and community-based service providers to the homeless testified about what is working, what isn't, what duplication might be eliminated, and where deficiencies exist that must be addressed. We learned that more than a half dozen Federal agencies will devote over $2 billion to homelessness. VA alone will spend upward of $221 million on grants, housing and treatment of underlying conditions. In fact, the fiscal year 2007 budget for VA will support a record level of funding for the sixth straight year for targeted programs for homeless veterans. Plainly stated, we cannot afford to waste any money. We must ensure that our resources are invested carefully so that homeless veterans can resume their self-sufficiency and independence.

Section 402 of S. 2694 is derived from legislation I introduced that would remove the four-year limit on the terms for the positions of Under Secretary for Health and Under Secretary for Benefits at VA. When the term limits were originally created, I think we all hoped that they would allow the two officials to serve four consecutive years without any political considerations, regardless of whether the service was in different administrations or under different VA leadership. History, however, has shown us that new administrations or even new VA leadership within the same administration often bring new people at all levels of government, including the two Under Secretary positions. In fact, the last three Under Secretaries for Health and the previous Under Secretary for Benefits did not complete a full 4-year term. Therefore, this provision would eliminate what are, in effect, limits on terms that serve no useful purpose.

The last of the provisions I sponsored touches on a subject that most of my colleagues likely remember. Last summer, 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. 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, the answer was ``no.'' That is why we sponsored legislation now contained in section 202 of S. 2694 which 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.

Mr. President, I want to thank all of the members of the committee and other Senators who worked so diligently on this bill. In particular, I commend the committee's anking member, Senator Akaka. I have said it before and I'll repeat it today, Hawaii's veterans are fortunate to have Senator Akaka as their advocate. It is been a pleasure working with him.

In closing, I ask for the support of the Senate in adopting S. 2694. It is an important, historic piece of legislation that will respect the freedoms won by our veterans on the battlefield, and will improve benefits available to them when they return home from it.

Mr President, I am pleased today to join my friend and co- chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, in introducing far-reaching legislation that will strengthen our Nation's defense and the National Guard, which is an inextricable part of the bedrock of our security. The National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 would empower the National Guard.

It offers the Guard new authorities and a greater and more fitting voice in policy and budgetary discussions that is more line with the reliance that we place on this force of proud men and women.

The Nation asks the Guard to provide a large part of the ground forces in Iraq, but then we give the force no say in strategic planning and budget discussions. In fact, there have been recent efforts within the armed services to cut the force precipitously.

Anyone who has watched recent events knows that the role of the Guard is dramatically changed as we come into this century.

We ask the Guard to carry out missions at home in response to disasters and possible domestic attacks, but then give the force no real ability to develop new equipment for this unique mission. And, in a crunch, our senior defense leaders--including the President--turn to the Chief of the National Guard for guidance in addressing and responding to emergencies within the domestic United States, yet those same senior Guard leaders receive only mediated and filtered advice at other points. This gap between the Guard's real world missions and its institutional position is simply unacceptable. It is not efficient, and it is not smart. It violates basic notions of logic, and it hinders our ability to get the full potential out of the National Guard.

Our legislation will take them from the 19th and 20th century structure into the 21st century's reality.

Our legislation directly addresses this troubling missions-to- authorities gap in three very specific ways. First, the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 would elevate the Chief of the National Guard to the rank of General with four-stars, also installing this senior officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Chiefs is the highest military advisory body to the President and the Secretary of Defense. Without a Guard representative at the four-star level, the Secretary and the President receive only filtered advice from the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Air Force about National Guard matters.

The Army and the Air Force chiefs can provide keen insights about the Guard's role as a prime military reserve to the active components. However, they are not responsible for, and therefore are not experts on, disaster relief and homeland security functions that the Guard carries out at the State level, often under the command-and-control of the Nation's governors. Placing a National Guard General on the Joint Chiefs offers the fullest and most sensible guidance to our leaders on all aspects of the Guard, and this arrangement would give the Nation's governors a straight line to the Joint Chiefs and the President on military matters.

Creating a Guard senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the President streamlines and formalizes an arrangement that already arises in real emergencies. During the darkest early days of Katrina, for example, the current National Guard Bureau Chief General Steven Blum was by the side of the Secretary of Defense and the President. A permanent Guard presence on the Joint Chiefs ensures that this advisory relationship is in no way last-minute and ad-hoc.

The second way that this legislation puts the National Guard's authorities more in line with its real-world missions is by giving the force more budgetary authority. The Act gives the National Guard the ability to research, develop and procure equipment that is peculiar to its unique mission in the realm of homeland security.

This authority would be similar to the authority of the Special Operations Command, given under the Nunn-Cohen legislation of the mid- 1980s, to develop unique equipment for the special forces.

Last year, Congress appropriated almost $1 billion for the National Guard to procure equipment that has application for homeland security. This legislation establishes more formal structure for the Guard to refine such equipment requirements and work in close coordination with the states to ensure an adequate force structure--fully adequate in domestic emergencies--is in place.

The final way that this legislation brings realistic authorities to the Guard is by ensuring that the Deputy Commander of Northern Command is a three-star general from the National Guard. This Command is charged with planning for the active military's response to federal emergencies, as well as coordinating the response with other federal agencies and civilian authorities. Any military response in the domestic United States will surely include the National Guard, in many cases with the State governor overseeing the effort.

Currently, there are few if any senior Guard officers at the highest reaches of

the Command, and the legislation would ensure expertise on the force exists there.

There has been a lot of discussion already about this legislation after Senator Bond and I last month expressed our intention to pursue it. To clear up any confusion, let me say what this legislation does not do. This legislation does not affect the National Guard's role as one of the primary military reserves to the Air Force and the Army, which we believe is beneficial for the country.

It also does not inflate the size of National Guard headquarters here in Washington. We put a firm cap on the size of the Guard Bureau in this legislation. The legislation further does not create any new general office positions beyond the four-star Joint Chiefs position. It only ensures that the adequate seats of representation is in place in key positions; in fact, the legislation actually removes a less influential Major General officer slot on the Joint Staff.

What this bill does do--and with great intensity--is to give the National Guard the institutional muscle commensurate with the Guard's missions. With this bill, we can ask the Guard to do all that it does, but then say that, yes, it can have a seat at the table during key discussions involving the Guard's missions and readiness. With this bill, we can tap into the Guard for situations like the war in Iraq and the response to Hurricane Katrina and tell these proud men and women that we take are committed to taking real steps to keep the size of this force steady and improve its stock of available equipment.

With this bill, we can ensure that our senior leaders--the Secretary of Defense and the President--are making decisions about the National Guard based on the best available information.

With this bill, we strengthen the National Guard, the military chain- of-command, and the Guard's ability to effectively serve each of the States and the entire Nation.