Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2162) to improve the treatment and services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs to veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and substance use disorders, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

We are considering two bills. This first one, S. 2162, as amended, the Veterans' Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008, and the next one is going to be about the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008. These are two bills which passed the Senate, and is an omnibus bill that includes legislation from the Senate and from the House.

Many of our Members have legislation in this bill. And they are two bills that are really going to be great for veterans, greatly enhance the benefit in both the health field and on the benefit field.

As we have discussed these bills, we have learned much about the needs of our Nation's veterans, and this bill goes a long way to address them. Rates for post traumatic stress disorder, for example, amongst Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans has been estimated to be higher than 30 percent. Additionally, as we have tragically learned, suicide is on the rise. The Army reports, in fact, rates as high as they were during the Vietnam War. And the rate of homelessness among this cohort is also tragically growing. We must act now to address these issues before it's too late.

We know from past wars that some veterans will struggle with substance abuse, homelessness, and PTSD. And we can see the same patterns emerging as a result of the stress of repeated deployments to OEF and OIF.

This bill expands and improves the health care services available to veterans fighting substance use disorders and requires that all VA medical centers provide veterans access to the full continuum of care for substance use disorders.

I would like to recognize both the leadership of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Mr. Michaud, and Ms. Berkley for their strong advocacy for veterans who suffer with substance use disorder and for their contributions to this very important provision in the bill.

As a way to honor the memory of Justin Bailey, a brave veteran that we lost to the horrors of war, this bill would ensure that the VA conduct more research about the often tragic relationship between PTSD and substance use disorders. The bill allows

community mental health centers in rural areas to work with the VA to provide peer outreach and support services as well as readjustment and mental health services.

We now know that PTSD not only affects the veteran, but also has a profound effect on their family. Thanks to the leadership of Mr. Hare from Illinois, this bill makes necessary changes to the law to allow the VA to provide needed counseling to families of veterans.

In addition to addressing the mental health challenges facing our veterans, many also experience homelessness. While the VA continues to be the largest provider of direct services to homeless veterans, we must ensure that it remains postured to assist the growing number of homeless veterans and veterans at risk for homelessness. To this end, the bill increases the authorization for homeless programs to $150 million.

It also expands and extends a valuable joint VA and Department of Labor program of referral and counseling services, ensures that the VA domiciliary program is capable of meeting the needs of the growing female population, and provides necessary support to low-income veteran families that have made the transition to permanent housing. I want to thank Mr. Murphy and Ms. Herseth Sandlin for their focus on this issue and ensuring that these provisions are in the bill.

Aside from mental health and homelessness, many veterans struggle to cope with chronic and acute pain. This pain lingers long after the physical wounds of war have healed and affects the quality of life of many veterans. Thanks to Mr. Walz of Minnesota's leadership, this bill would require the VA to develop and implement a system-wide policy on pain management.

S. 2162 also improves the health care for certain groups of especially vulnerable populations within the VA. It establishes Epilepsy Centers of Excellence to care for the 89,000 veterans with epilepsy, provides comprehensive health care to children of Vietnam veterans born with spina bifida, and updates VA policies regarding HIV testing. This would not have been possible without the hard work of Mr. Perlmutter of Colorado, Mr. Ellsworth of Indiana, and Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania.

Next, this bill would reduce the financial burden placed on our veterans. It requires the VA to reimburse veterans for the cost of emergency treatment received in non-VA facilities, prohibits the collection of copayments for all hospice care furnished by the VA, and increases the beneficiary travel mileage reimbursement rate to the current government employee rate. I want to thank Mr. Space of Ohio for his contribution on the emergency treatment provision. And I would like to thank Mr. Miller from Florida for his work on prohibiting copayments for hospice care.

Another challenge facing the VA is rural health. Today, nearly 39 percent of veterans enrolled in the VA health care system live in rural areas. Despite the expansion of community-based outpatient clinics and vet centers, many rural veterans still have problems of access. Thanks to Mr. Moran of Kansas' leadership, this bill requires the VA to conduct a 3-year pilot program in five Veterans Integrated Service Networks to allow highly rural veterans to seek covered health services from non-VA health care providers.

The VA is currently authorized to collect third-party payments from veterans' insurance companies, but due to ineffective procedures, over $1 billion go uncollected annually. This legislation would require the VA to establish no more than seven other Consolidated Patient Account Centers to enable it to improve its billing performance. And I want to recognize and thank my ranking member, Mr. Buyer of Indiana, for his contributions to this issue.

The bill also gives the VA the legal authorities it needs to move forward in major facility construction projects and leases so that it can continue to provide world-class health care to veterans in world- class facilities.

The bill also extends or makes permanent a number of important expiring authorities.

Finally, the bill would name the VA Spinal Cord Injury Center in Tampa, Florida, after our former colleague, Michael Bilirakis. It was through former Congressman Bilirakis' efforts that this center came into being. He served in the Air Force in the 1950s and served in Congress for 24 years. It is fitting that we recognize his efforts in naming the center after him.

I want to recognize and thank Mr. Miller of Florida for his leadership on this issue, and also the younger Mr. Bilirakis from Florida for carrying on his father's tradition.

Mr. Speaker, both Republican and Democratic Members of this committee made major contributions to this bill. And I want to thank the staff from both sides of the aisle for putting together such a comprehensive package. It takes care of the men and women who have given so much to defend this Nation, provides our veterans with the quality health care programs and services they need and they so richly deserve.

I hope my colleagues will support S. 2162, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to an incredibly active and important new Member from New York, John Hall, who chairs our Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs. I thank you for all your efforts on behalf of our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I would recognize another great and new member of our committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), also for 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize for 5 minutes the dynamic gentlelady from Florida who has served with me and fought with me for 16 years on this committee, Ms. Brown.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), another Member who has served on our committee for almost a decade.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2162, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to say to Congressman Buyer, the ranking member, and really all the Members on both the Republican and Democrat side of this committee, we have had some ups and downs in this year, but these two bills that we are doing today are great bills. I think we, and I say ``we'' meaning all of us, have a great deal to be proud of. We are going to touch millions of veterans with these bills, millions, and their families, and we are doing it on behalf of people that we know deserve no less.

We have traveled around the country. We have met thousands of veterans in different States. I think both of us get more and more impressed with both the newer veterans and the older veterans and what they have accomplished and how they have carried out their lives. So we are very proud to have worked together to produce these bills.

Joint Explanatory Statement For S. 2162, as Amended

Veterans' Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008

The ``Veterans' Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008'' reflects a compromise agreement that the Senate and House of Representatives' Committees on Veterans' Affairs reached on certain provisions of a number of bills considered by the House and Senate during the 110th Congress, including: S. 2162, to improve the treatment and services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs to veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and substance use disorders, and for other purposes, passed by the Senate on June 3, 2008 [hereinafter, ``Senate Bill'']; H.R. 5554, to expand and improve health care services available to veterans from the Department of Veterans Affairs for substance use disorders, and for other purposes, passed by the House on May 20, 2008 [hereinafter, ``House Bill'']; S. 1233, to provide and enhance intervention, rehabilitative treatment, and services to veterans with traumatic brain injury, and for other purposes, placed on the Senate calendar on August 29, 2007.

H.R. 1527, to conduct a pilot program to permit certain highly rural veterans enrolled in the health system of the Department of Veterans Affairs to receive covered health services through providers other than those of the Department, passed by the House on September 10, 2008; H.R. 2623, to prohibit the collection of copayments for all hospice care furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs, passed by the House on July 30, 2007; H.R. 2818, to provide for the establishment of epilepsy centers of excellence in the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, passed by the House on June 24, 2008; H.R. 2874, to make certain improvements in the provision of health care to veterans, and for other purposes, passed by the House on July 30, 2007; S. 2969, to enhance the capacity of the Department of Veterans Affairs to recruit and retain nurses and other critical health care professionals, and for other purposes, placed on the Senate calendar on September 18, 2008.

H.R. 3819, to reimburse veterans receiving emergency treatment in non-Department of Veterans Affairs facilities for such treatment until such veterans are transferred to Department facilities, and for other purposes, passed by the House on May 21, 2008; H.R. 4264, to name the Department of Veterans Affairs spinal cord injury center in Tampa, Florida, as the ``Michael Bilirakis Department of Veterans Affairs Spinal Cord Injury Center, passed by the House on June 26, 2008; H.R. 5729, to provide comprehensive health care to children of Vietnam veterans born with Spina Bifida, and for other purposes, passed by the House on May 20, 2008; H.R. 6445, to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from collecting certain copayments from veterans who are catastrophically disabled, and for other purposes, passed by the House on July 30, 2008; H.R. 6832, to authorize major medical facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2009, to extend certain authorities of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes, passed by the House on September 11, 2008; S. 2969, to enhance the capacity of the Department of Veterans Affairs to recruit and retain nurses and other critical health care professionals and for other purposes, which was placed on the Senate legislative calendar on September 18, 2008.

The House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs have prepared the following explanation of the compromise bill, S. 2162 (hereinafter referred to as the ``Compromise Agreement''). Differences between the provisions contained in the Compromise Agreement and the related provisions in the bills listed above are noted in this document, except for clerical corrections and conforming changes made necessary by the Compromise Agreement, and minor drafting, technical, and clarifying changes.

Title I--Substance Use Disorders and Mental Health Care

Tribute to Justin Bailey (sec. 101)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 306) to specify that this title is enacted in tribute to Justin Bailey, who, after returning to the United States from service as member of the Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, died in a domiciliary facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs while receiving care for post-traumatic stress disorder and a substance use disorder.

Section 6 of the House bill contained the identical provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains this provision.

Findings on Substance Use Disorders and Mental Health (sec. 102)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 301) that would express the sense of the Congress that:

(1) More than 1,500,000 members of the Armed Forces have been deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The 2005 Department of Defense Survey of Health Related Behaviors Among Active Duty Personnel reports that 23 percent of members of the Armed Forces on active duty acknowledge a significant problem with alcohol use, with similar rates of acknowledged problems with alcohol use among members of the National Guard.

(2) The effects of substance abuse are wide ranging, including significantly increased risk of suicide, exacerbation of mental and physical health disorders, breakdown of family support, and increased risk of unemployment and homelessness.

(3) While veterans suffering from mental health conditions, chronic physical illness, and poly trauma may be at increased risk for development of a substance use disorder, treatment for these veterans is complicated by the need to address adequately the physical and mental symptoms associated with these conditions through appropriate medical intervention.

(4) While the Veterans Health Administration has dramatically increased health services for veterans from 1996 through 2006, the number of veterans receiving specialized substance abuse treatment services decreased 18 percent during that time. No comparable decrease in the national rate of substance abuse has been observed during that time.

(5) While some facilities of the Veterans Health Administration provide exemplary substance use disorder treatment services, the availability of such treatment services throughout the health care system of the Veterans Health Administration is inconsistent.

(6) According to the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Veterans Affairs significantly reduced its substance use disorder treatment and rehabilitation services between 1996 and 2006, and has made little progress since in restoring these services to their pre- 1996 levels.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the Senate provision but modifies finding (6) to include the year of the Government Accountability report and cites the National Mental Health Program Monitoring System report.

Expansion of Substance Use Disorder Treatment Services Provided by the

Department of Veterans Affairs (sec. 103)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 302) that would require that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ensure the provision of services and treatment to each veteran enrolled in the health care system of the Department who is in need of services and treatments for a substance use disorder, and the bill included a specific list of services. The Senate bill would also authorize that the services and treatments may be provided to a veteran: (1) at Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers or clinics; (2) by referral to other facilities of the Department that are accessible to such veteran; or (3) by contract or fee- for-service payments with community-based organizations for the provision of such services and treatments.

The House bill contained a similar provision (sec. 2) that would require the Secretary to provide a full continuum of care for substance use disorders to veterans in need of such care and included a specific list of services, including three services not included in the Senate bill: marital and family counseling, screening for substance use disorders, and coordination with groups providing peer to peer counseling. The House bill (sec. 3) would also require the Secretary to ensure that the amounts made available for care, treatment, and services are allocated evenly throughout the system, including an annual reporting requirement.

The Compromise Agreement includes the listing of substance use disorder services included in both the Senate and House bills, and follows the Senate bill with respect to the locations of where services would be provided. The Compromise Agreement follows the House bill with respect to ensuring the equitable distribution of resources for substance abuse services but does not include the annual reporting requirement.

Care for Veterans with Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders (sec.

104)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 303) that would ensure that if the Secretary of Veterans Affairs provides a veteran inpatient or outpatient care for a substance use disorder and a comorbid mental health disorder, that the treatment for such disorders be provided concurrently: (1) through a service provided by a clinician or health professional who has training and expertise in treatment of substance use disorders and mental health disorders; (2) by separate substance use disorder and mental health disorder treatment services when there is appropriate coordination, collaboration, and care management between such treatment services; or (3) by a team of clinicians with appropriate expertise.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the Senate provision.

Pilot Program for Internet-based Substance Use Disorder Treatment for

Veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom

(sec. 105)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 4) that would express the sense of the Congress that:

(1) Stigma associated with seeking treatment for mental health disorders has been demonstrated to prevent some veterans from seeking such treatment at a medical facility operated by the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

(2) There is a significant incidence among veterans of post- deployment mental health problems, especially among members of a reserve component who return as veterans to civilian life.

(3) Computer-based self-guided training has been demonstrated to be an effective strategy for supplementing the care of psychological conditions.

(4) Younger veterans, especially those who served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, are comfortable with and proficient at computer-based technology.

(5) Veterans living in rural areas find access to treatment for substance use disorder limited.

(6) Self-assessment and treatment options for substance use disorders through an Internet website may reduce stigma and provides additional access for individuals seeking care and treatment for such disorders.

This provision would also require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program to test the feasibility and advisability of providing veterans who seek treatment for substance use disorders access to a computer-based self-assessment, education, and specified treatment program through a secure Internet website operated by the Secretary.

The Senate bill contained no similar provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the House provision.

Report on Residential Mental Health Care Facilities of the Veterans

Health Administration (sec. 106)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 305) that would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, acting through the Office of Mental Health Services of the Department of Veterans Affairs, not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, conduct a review of all residential mental health care facilities, including domiciliary facilities, of the Veterans Health Administration; and not later than two years after the date of the completion of the first review conduct a follow-up review of such facilities to evaluate any improvements made or problems remaining since the first review was completed. Not later than 90 days after the completion of the first review, the Secretary would be required to submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on such review.

The House bill (sec. 5) contained a similar provision, except there was no provision for a two-year follow-up review, and the six-month review would be carried out by the Office of the Medical Inspector.

The Compromise Agreement includes the Senate provision which specifies the two-year follow-up review, but would have the Inspector General carry out the reviews.

Pilot Program on Peer Outreach and Support for Veterans and Use of

Community Mental Health Centers and Indian Health Service

Facilities (sec. 107)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 401) that would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing the following to veterans of OIF/OEF in at least two Veterans Integrated Service Networks: 1) peer outreach services; 2) peer support services provided by licensed providers of peer support services or veterans who have personal experience with mental illness; 3) readjustment counseling services; and other mental health services. Services would be provided through community mental health centers or other entities under contracts or other agreements and through the Indian Health Service pursuant to a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Section 6 of H.R. 2874 required the Secretary to carry out a program to provide peer outreach services, peer support services, and readjustment and mental health services to covered veterans. This provision was not a pilot program and did not provide for the means to collaborate with the Indian Health Service.

The Compromise Agreement contains the Senate provision with an amendment that would authorize at least three pilot sites.

Title II--Mental Health Research

Research Program on Comorbid Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and

Substance Use Disorders (sec. 201)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 501) that would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a program of research into comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorder. This research program shall be carried out by the National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. In carrying out the program, the Center shall: 1) develop protocols and goals with respect to research under the program; and 2) coordinate research, data collection, and data dissemination under the program.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the Senate provision.

Extension of Authorization for Special Committee on Post-Traumatic

Stress Disorder (sec. 202)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 502) that would modify section 110(e)(2) of the Veterans' Health Care Act of 1984, P.L. 98- 528, to extend the reporting requirement for the Special Committee on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Currently, the reporting requirement is set to expire in 2008; this provision would extend it through 2012.

Section 209 of H.R. 6832 contained an identical provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the provision.

Title III--Assistance for Families of Veterans

Clarification of Authority of Secretary of Veterans Affairs to Provide

Mental Health Services to Families of Veterans (sec. 301)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 601) that would amend section 1701(5)(B) of title 38, United States Code, to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide mental health services to families of veterans.

Section 3 of H.R. 6445 contained a provision that would modify section 1782(b) of title 38 so as to eliminate the requirement that family support services be initiated during the veteran's hospitalization and deemed essential to permit the veteran's discharge.

The Compromise Agreement follows the House bill with respect to the provision eliminating the need for services to be initiated during a veteran's hospitalization and essential to the veteran's discharge, but follows the Senate bill with respect to the provision to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide mental health services to families.

Pilot Program on Provision of Readjustment and Transition Assistance to

Veterans and Their Families in Cooperation with Vet Centers (sec.

302)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 402) that would establish a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing additional readjustment and transition assistance to veterans and their families in cooperation with Readjustment Counseling Centers. The pilot would be similar to family assistance programs previously conducted at ten Army facilities around the country.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the Senate provision with an amendment to begin the pilot program no later than 180 days after the enactment of the Act.

Title IV--Health Care Matters

Veterans Beneficiary Travel Program (sec. 401)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 101) that would direct the Secretary to reimburse qualifying veterans at the rate authorized for Government employees under section 5707(b) of title 5. The Senate provision would also strike a provision that allows the Secretary to raise or lower the deductible for reimbursements in proportion to a change in the mileage rate. Finally, the Senate provision would reinstate the amount of the deductible for the beneficiary travel reimbursement program to the amount in effect prior to the Secretary's February 1, 2008, decision on beneficiary travel.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the Senate provision.

Mandatory Reimbursement of Veterans Receiving Emergency Treatment in

Non-Department of Veterans Affairs Facilities until Transfer to

Department Facilities (sec. 402)

The Senate bill contained a provision that would amend section 1725 of title 38 in subsections (a)(1) and (f)(1). Subsection (a)(1) would be amended by replacing `may reimburse' with `shall reimburse.' This change would make reimbursement for emergency care received at non-VA facilities mandatory for eligible veterans, rather than at the discretion of the Secretary. Subsection (f)(1) would be amended to provide greater specificity regarding the termination of VA's obligation to reimburse. The Senate bill would also amend section 1728 of title 38 so as to make that section, which relates to reimbursement for the emergency treatment of service-connected conditions, consistent with section 1725, as amended. Thus, reimbursement would also be made mandatory under Section 1728. The existing criteria, defining veteran eligibility for reimbursement for emergency care services, would be carried over in the revised statutory language. In addition, the Senate bill would further amend section 1728 so as to strike the phrase `care and services' in current subsection (b) of section 1728, and replace that phrase with `emergency treatment.' This proposed change is designed to promote consistency between sections 1725 and 1728.

H.R. 3819 contained similar provisions.

The Compromise Agreement contains these provisions.

Pilot Program of Enhanced Contract Care Authority for Health Care Needs

of Veterans in Highly Rural Areas (sec. 403)

H.R. 1527 (sec. 2) would require the Secretary to conduct a pilot program which permits highly rural veterans who are enrolled in the system of patient enrollment established under section 1705(a) of title 38, and who reside in Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) 1, 15, 18, and 19, to elect to receive covered health services for which such veterans are eligible, through a non-Department health care provider.

The Senate bill contained no similar provision.

The Compromise Agreement follows the House bill, with an amendment that specifies that the pilot program will be carried out in 5 VISNs, four of which shall include at least three highly rural counties (as determined by the Secretary based upon the most recent census data), and one of which shall include one highly rural county. All VISNs selected must include an area within the borders of at least four states, and not be already participating in Project HERO. Eligibility for participation in the pilot program would be limited to those veterans already enrolled in the VA health care system at the time of commencement of the program, as well as OIF/OEF veterans who are eligible for VA health care under section 1710(e)(3)(C) of title 38.

Epilepsy Centers of Excellence (sec. 404)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 103) that would require that the Secretary, upon the recommendation of the Under Secretary for Health, designate not less than six Department health care facilities as locations for epilepsy centers of excellence.

H.R. 2818 (sec. 2) would require the Secretary to designate an epilepsy center of excellence at each of the 5 centers designated under section 7327 of title 38 (Centers for research, education, and clinical activities on complex multi-trauma associated with combat injuries).

The Compromise Agreement specifies that the Secretary shall designate at least four but not more than six Department health care facilities as locations for epilepsy centers of excellence. Not less than two of these centers shall be collocated with centers designated under 7327 of title 38.

Establishment of Qualifications for Peer Specialist Appointees (sec.

405)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 104) that would amend section 7402(b) of title 38 so as to define qualifications for peer specialist positions employed by the Veterans Health Administration. Specifically, in order to be eligible to be appointed to a peer specialist position, a person must be a veteran who has recovered or is recovering from a mental health condition; and be certified by a not- for-profit entity engaged in peer specialist training by having met such criteria as the Secretary shall establish for a peer specialist position; or a State by having satisfied relevant State requirements for a peer specialist position. The Senate bill would also amend section 7402 of title 38 so as to add a new subsection providing authority for the Secretary to enter into contracts with not-for-profit entities to provide peer specialist training to veterans and certification for veterans.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the Senate provision.

Establishment of Consolidated Patient Accounting Centers (sec. 406)

Section 5 of H.R. 6445 contained a provision that would amend chapter 17 of title 38 to insert a new section mandating that not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this bill, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish not more than seven consolidated patient accounting centers for conducting industry-modeled regionalized billing and collection activities of the Department.

The Senate bill contained no comparable provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the House provision.

Repeal of Limitation on Authority to Conduct Widespread HIV Testing

Program (sec. 407)Section 217 of S. 2969 would repeal section 124 of Public Law 100-322, which permits VA to test a patient for HIV infection only if the veteran receives pre-test counseling and provides written informed consent for such testing. Eliminating this section from the law would bring VA's statutory HIV testing requirements in line with current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Section 6 of H.R. 6445 contained an identical provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the provision.

Provision of Comprehensive Health Care by Secretary of Veterans Affairs

to Children of Vietnam Veterans Born with Spina Bifida (sec. 408)

H.R. 5729 would amend section 1803(a) of title 38 so as to expand the existing VA Spina Bifida Health Care Program and provide a comprehensive health benefit to beneficiaries.

The Senate bill contained no comparable provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the House provision.

Exemption from Copayment Requirement for Veterans Receiving Hospice

Care (sec. 409)

Section 309 of S. 1233 would amend section 1710 of title 38 so as to exempt hospice care provided in all settings from the copayment requirement for VA long-term care. Under current law, only hospice care provided in a VA nursing home is exempted from copayment.

H.R. 2623 contained a similar provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the provision.

Title V--Pain Care

Comprehensive Policy on Pain Management (sec. 501)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 201) that would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement a comprehensive policy on the management of pain experienced by veterans enrolled for VA health care services no later than October 1, 2008.

The policy would be required to cover the following: the Department- wide management of acute and chronic pain experienced by veterans; the standard of care for pain management to be used throughout the Department; the consistent application of pain assessments to be used throughout the Department; the assurance of prompt and appropriate pain care treatment and management by the Department, system-wide, when medically necessary; Department programs of research related to acute and chronic pain suffered by veterans, including pain attributable to central and peripheral nervous system damage characteristic of injuries incurred in modern warfare; Department programs of pain care education and training for health care personnel of the Department; and Department programs of patient education for veterans suffering from acute or chronic pain and their families.

Section 4 of H.R. 6445 contained identical provisions.

The Compromise Agreement contains the provisions, but would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement a comprehensive policy on pain management no later than October 1, 2009.

Title VI--Homeless Veterans Matters

Increase in Authorization of Appropriations for the Homeless Grant and

Per Diem Program (sec. 601)

Section 506 of S. 2969 would amend section 2013 of title 38, to increase the authorization of appropriations for the Homeless Grant and Per Diem Program from $130 million to $200 million.

The House bill contained no comparable provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the Senate provision but changes the authorization amount to $150 million.

Expansion and Extension of Authority for Program of Referral and

Counseling Services for At-risk Veterans Transitioning from Certain

Institutions (sec. 602)

Section 403 of S. 1233 would amend section 2023 of title 38 so as to extend and expand the authority for a program to aid incarcerated veterans in their transition back to civilian life. The program would be extended until September 30, 2011, and would be expanded from six to twelve sites.

Section 7 of H.R. 2874 contained identical provisions.

The Compromise Agreement contains the provision, but would extend the program until September 30, 2012.

Permanent Authority for Domiciliary Services for Homeless Veterans and

Enhancement of Capacity of Domiciliary Care Programs for Female

Veterans (sec. 603)

Section 405 of S. 1233 would amend section 2043 of title 38 to make permanent an existing authority to expand domiciliary care for homeless women veterans.

Section 8 of H.R. 2874 contained identical provisions.

The Compromise Agreement contains the provisions.

Financial Assistance for Supportive Services for Very-low Income

Veteran Families in Permanent Housing (sec. 604)

Section 406 of S. 1233 would amend title 38 so as to add a new section 2044, relating to supportive services for very low-income veterans and their families occupying permanent housing. Proposed new section 2044 would direct VA to provide grants to eligible entities to provide and coordinate the provision of a comprehensive range of supportive services for very low-income veteran families occupying permanent housing, including those transitioning from homelessness to such housing.

Those families may be occupying permanent housing, moving into permanent housing within 90 days, or moving from one permanent residence to another to better suit their needs. Entities eligible to receive grants under this provision are public or private non-profit organizations which have demonstrated the capacity and experience necessary to deliver the services outlined in the proposed new section. Under the provisions of the proposed new section 2044, grants would be provided for a wide range of services, so as to give families a broad set of tools to maintain a permanent residence. To this end, providers could receive grants to furnish outreach, case management, assistance in obtaining and coordinating VA benefits, and assistance in obtaining and coordinating other public benefits provided by federal, state, or local agencies or organizations.

Section 9 of H.R. 2874 contained similar provisions but provided a more expansive list of supportive services, and authorized for appropriations a different funding level.

The Compromise Agreement contains the Senate provision.

Title VII--Authorization of Medical Facility Projects and Major Medical

Facility Leases

Authorization for Fiscal Year 2009 Major Medical Facility Projects

(sec. 701)

Section 701 of S. 2969 would authorize:

$54,000,000 to construct a facility to replace a seismically unsafe acute psychiatric inpatient building in Palo Alto, California.

$131,800,000 for an outpatient clinic in Lee County, Florida.

$225,900,000 to make seismic corrections at a VA Medical Center in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

$66,000,000 to construct a state-of-the-art polytrauma health care and rehabilitation center in San Antonio, Texas.

Section 101 of H.R. 6832 contained the same provisions, except for Lee County, Florida. Instead, H.R. 6832 authorizes the Lee County project under a different section.

The Compromise Agreement contains the House provision.

Modification of Authorization Amounts for Certain Major Medical

Facility Construction Projects Previously Authorized (sec. 702)

Section 702 of S. 2969 would modify previous authorizations by providing $625,000,000 for restoration, new construction, or replacement of the medical care facility for the VA Medical Center at New Orleans, Louisiana.

Section 102 of H.R. 6832 contained the same provisions and the following additional provisions:

$769,200,000 for the replacement of the VA Medical Center at Denver, Colorado.

$131,800,000 for an outpatient clinic in Lee County, Florida.

$136,700,000 to correct patient privacy deficiencies at the VA Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida.

$600,400,000 to build a new VA Medical Center in Las Vegas, Nevada.

$656,800,000 to build a new medical center in Orlando, Florida.

$295,600,000 to consolidate the campuses at the University Drive and H. John Heinz III Divisions in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The Compromise Agreement contains the House provision with an amendment to provide $568,000,000 for the replacement of the VA Medical Center at Denver, Colorado.

Authorization of Fiscal Year 2009 Major Medical Facility Leases (sec.

703)

Section 703 of S. 2969 would authorize fiscal year 2009 major medical facility leases as follows:

$4,326,000 for an outpatient clinic in Brandon, Florida.

$10,300,000 for a community-based outpatient clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

$5,826,000 for an outpatient clinic in Eugene, Oregon.

$5,891,000 to expand an outpatient clinic in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

$3,731,000 for an outpatient clinic in Greenville, South Carolina.

$2,212,000 for a community-based outpatient clinic in Mansfield, Ohio.

$6,276,000 for a satellite outpatient clinic in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.

$5,106,000 for a community-based outpatient clinic in Southeast Phoenix, Mesa, Arizona.

$8,636,000 for interim research space in Palo Alto, California.

$3,168,000 to expand a community-based outpatient clinic in Savannah, Georgia.

$2,295,000 for a community-based outpatient clinic in Northwest Phoenix, Sun City, Arizona.

$8,652,000 for a primary care annex in Tampa, Florida.

Section 102 of H.R. 6832 included the same provisions, except that it provided $3,995,000 for Colorado Springs.

The Compromise Agreement includes the Senate provisions.

Authorization of Appropriations (sec. 704)

Section 704 of S. 2969 would authorize for appropriations:

$477,700,000 for the aforementioned list of major medical facility projects authorized for fiscal year 2009.

$625,000,000 for the aforementioned list of major medical facility construction projects previously authorized.

$66,419,000 for the aforementioned list of major facility leases authorized for fiscal year 2009.

S. 2969 also identified funding sources which may be used to carry out major medical facility projects authorized for fiscal year 2009 and for those projects previously authorized.

Section 105 of H.R. 6832 would authorize for appropriations:

$345,900,000 for the aforementioned list of major medical facility projects authorized for fiscal year 2009.

$1,694,295,000 for the aforementioned list of major medical facility construction projects previously authorized.

$54,475,000 for the aforementioned list of major facility leases authorized for fiscal year 2009.

The Compromise Agreement includes the House provision, with amendments to provide $1,493,495,000 for major facility construction projects previously authorized and $70,019,000 for major facility leases authorized for fiscal year 2009. The Agreement also includes the provision in S. 2969 on allowable funding sources to carry out major medical facility projects.

Increase in Threshold for Major Medical Facility Leases Requiring

Congressional Approval (sec. 705)

Section 705 of S. 2969 would increase the threshold for major medical facility leases requiring Congressional approval from $600,000 to $1,000,000.

H.R. 6832 contained no comparable provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the Senate provision.

Conveyance of Certain Non-Federal Land by City of Aurora, Colorado, to

Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Construction of Veterans Medical

Facility (sec. 706)

Section 706 of S. 2969 would allow the city of Aurora to donate non- Federal land for use by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs no later than 60 days after the enactment of this section.

H.R. 6832 contained no comparable provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the Senate provision.

Report on facilities administration (sec. 707)

Section 106 of H.R. 6832 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a report on facilities administration no later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section.

S. 2969 contained no comparable provision

The Compromise Agreement includes the House provision.

Annual report on outpatient clinics (sec. 708)

Section 107 of H.R. 6832 would require an annual report on outpatient clinics no later than the date on which the budget for the next fiscal year is submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of title 31.

S. 2969 contained no comparable provision.

The Compromise Agreement includes the House provision.

Name of Department of Veterans Affairs Spinal Cord Injury Center,

Tampa, Florida (sec. 709)

H.R. 4264 would name the VA spinal cord injury center in Tampa Florida, ``Michael Bilirakis Department of Veterans Affairs Spinal Cord Injury Center.''

S. 2969 contained no comparable provision.

The Compromise Agreement includes the House provision.

Title VIII--Extension of Certain Authorities

Repeal of Sunset on Inclusion of Non-institutional Extended Care

Services in Definition of Medical Services (sec. 801)

Section 201 of S. 2969 would amend section 1701 of title 38 to repeal the December 31, 2008, sunset on the inclusion of non-institutional extended care services in the definition of medical services.

Sec. 201 of H.R. 6832 contained an identical provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the provision.

Extension of Recovery Audit Authority (sec. 802)

Section 202 of S. 2969 would amend section 1703(d)(4) of title 38 to extend the recovery audit authority for fee-basis contracts and other medical services contracts in non-VA facilities from September 30, 2008, to September 30, 2013.

Sec. 202 of H.R. 6832 contained an identical provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the provision.

Permanent Authority for Provision of Hospital Care, Medical Services,

and Nursing Home Care to Veterans who Participated in Certain

Chemical and Biological Testing Conducted by the Department of

Defense (sec. 803)

Section 203 of S. 2969 would amend subsection (e)(3) of section 1710 of title 38 to provide permanent authority for the provision of hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care to veterans who participated in certain chemical and biological testing conducted by the Department of Defense.

Section 203 of H.R. 6832 contained an identical provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the provision.

Extension of Expiring Collections Authorities (sec. 804)

S. 2969 contained no comparable provision.

Section 204 of H.R. 6832 would extend the expiring collections authorities for the following: a) amend section 1710(f)(2)(B) of title 38 to extend health care copayments from September 30, 2008, under current law, to September 30, 2010; and b) amend section 1729 (a)(2)(E) of title 38 to extend the medical care cost recovery from October 1, 2008, to October 1, 2010.

The Compromise Agreement contains the House provision.

Extension of Nursing Home Care (sec. 805)

Section 202 of S. 2969 would amend 1710A(d) of title 38 to provide nursing home care to veterans with service-connected disability, which expires on December 31, 2008, to December 31, 2013.

Section 205 of H.R. 6832 contained an identical provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the provision.

Permanent Authority to Establish Research Corporations (sec. 806)

Section 607 of S. 2969 would strike section 7368 of title 38 to provide permanent authority to establish research corporations

Section 207 of H.R. 6832 contained an identical provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the provision.

Extension of Requirement to Submit Annual Report on the Committee on

Care of Severely Chronically Mentally Ill Veterans (sec. 807)

Section 210 of H.R. 6832 would amend section 7321(d)(2) of title 38 to extend the requirement to submit an annual report on the committee on care of severely chronically mentally ill veterans through 2012.

S. 2969 contained no comparable provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the House provision.

Permanent Requirement for Biannual Report on Women's Advisory Committee

(sec. 808)

Section 211 of H.R. 6832 would amend section 542(c)(1) of title 38 to provide for a permanent requirement for a biannual report by the women's advisory committee on the needs of women veterans including compensation, health care, rehabilitation, outreach, and other benefits and programs administered by the VA.

S. 2969 contained no comparable provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the House provision.

Extension of Pilot Program on Improvement of Caregiver Assistance

Services (sec. 809)

Section 222 of S. 2969 would extend the pilot program on improvement of caregiver assistance services for a three-year period through fiscal year 2009.

H.R. 6832 contained no comparable provision.

The Compromise Agreement includes the Senate provision.

Title IX--Other Matters

Technical Amendments (sec. 901)

Section 303 of H.R. 6832 would provide for technical amendments for the following sections of title 38: 1712A; 2065(b)(3)(C); 4110(c)(1); 7458(b)(2); 8117(a)(1); 1708(d); 7314(f); 7320(j)(2); 7325(i)(2); and 7328(i)(2). It also would provide for technical amendments to the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 36 and chapter 51, as well as amend section 807(e) of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-461) to replace the phrase `Medical Care' with `Medical Facilities.'

S. 2969 contained no comparable provision.

The Compromise Agreement contains the House provision.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, over the past weekend, our Nation observed Veterans Day, a day to commemorate the connection between the American people and America's veterans. This connection is something that the American people are always aware of at the bottom of their hearts, though it may not always be in the front of our minds as we go about our daily lives.

We Americans often define ourselves by the freedoms we enjoy. America's veterans are men and women who sacrificed some of their own freedoms to serve and defend our Nation. The connection between these two groups--the defended and the defenders--may not always be visible, but it cannot be denied. Veterans Day gave us the opportunity to recall that connection, to honor those who wore the uniform of our country.

As chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, it has been my privilege to work alongside other leaders in answering a simple question: How do we best honor veterans? Having so recently celebrated Veterans Day, I am pleased to report on the committee's work in the areas of legislation and oversight to try to answer that question.

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has worked diligently to fulfill its oversight and legislative responsibilities, demonstrated in part by our hearing and meeting schedule. We have held 40 hearings and meetings, including 7 field hearings, since our organizational meeting in January. The committee has heard from 220 witnesses, and reported 4 nominees to the Senate, each of whom was later confirmed.

At our committee's very first meeting, I discussed my agenda to work with other members to bring the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs together to provide a seamless transition for veterans from DOD to VA. We focused on seamless transition and set an agenda to pursue the issue in the coming year.

These actions were taken long before the horrible news reports about conditions at Walter Reed shocked the country into action. Our foresight positioned the committee, in collaboration with the Senate Armed Services Committee, to craft legislation that attacked the flaws within the DOD and VA systems. I am pleased that our legislative responses were incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act. I look forward to seeing them become law.

Two weeks after the organizational meeting, the committee held its first hearing, which was on VA and DOD cooperation and collaboration. We heard testimony from officials from VA and DOD, as well as the personal stories of veterans who slipped through the cracks during their transition from military service to veterans status. This would be the first of a number of hearings the committee would hold on VA and DOD cooperation and collaboration. Later hearings on this issue focused on specific areas such as health care, education, information technology, and benefits.

In February, I contacted DOD on behalf of VA's Polytrauma Center health care providers so as to ensure that VA providers had easy and appropriate access to DOD's Joint Patient Tracking Application. This medical information sharing application is important to data sharing between VA and DOD. I was pleased when DOD responded shortly thereafter, providing assurance that they would resume their important data sharing practices.

The decision to focus on cooperation and collaboration between DOD and VA was made well before news broke on the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed. As these news stories moved questions about veterans care into the forefront of America's attention, our committee put our focus on the total system of care, involving DOD and VA.

Shortly after the press revelations of problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I visited Walter Reed, along with my good friend and colleague, Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. On the way back to the Capitol from that visit, we agreed to hold an unprecedented joint hearing of the Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committee on the issue of DOD-VA cooperation and collaboration. On April 12, we held that hearing, further pursuing answers both about what was happening at Walter Reed and how we could fix it and about the overall state of the relationship between the two Departments.

From that hearing and subsequent work on the problems at Walter Reed and elsewhere in both the DOD and VA systems, and how those problems affected wounded servicemembers, it was clear that a commonsense approach was needed.

One specific focus of that effort was on how to reform the DOD disability system so as to promote greater uniformity among the services and between the services and VA. On April 30, I introduced S. 1252, a bill that would mandate a number of changes to the DOD disability evaluation system, including uniform use of the Veterans Affairs rating schedule across the military services, inclusion of all conditions which render a member unfit when making a disability rating, uniform training of Medical Evaluation Board/Physical Evaluation Board personnel, and accountability by DOD to ensure compliance with disability rating regulations and policies.

Just as veterans and servicemembers benefit when VA and DOD work together, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate Committee on Armed Services saw an opportunity to collaborate on legislative solutions. All of the provisions of S. 1252 were included as part of S. 1606, the joint SVAC and SASC proposed Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act of 2007, which was later included in the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act.

While demands on VA have dramatically increased over recent years, VA funding has not. To allow the hard working men and women of VA to do their jobs without having to worry about whether there will be sufficient funding, we have sought a substantial increase to VA funding. I am pleased that the funding level in VA's fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill amounts to the largest funding increase in the history of the Department.

The appropriations bill also includes significant increases that will enable the Veterans Benefits Administration to pay for up to 3,100 new full-time employees. I hope the VBA will use these funds to attack the current backlog of veterans' claims aggressively. I will continue to work with my colleagues to enact this historic and long overdue increase in funding for veterans.

In working on the legislative front, the committee has taken a collaborative approach with other Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Our focus has been on getting good law enacted, whatever the vehicle. I am pleased to report on the committee's progress on many pieces of legislation, some of which have already been enacted into law.

As we continue to pursue adequate funds to pay for the true cost of war, we must also recognize that the nature of the battles our troops are fighting has changed as well. VA health care must be better prepared to address traumatic brain injury, the signature wound of the current war. To improve VA's diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation for traumatic brain injuries, I introduced S. 1233, the proposed Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvements Act of 2007. This bill, amended to include a number of other health care provisions, was reported by the committee. In addition, many of the provisions of S. 1233 were later incorporated into the Wounded Warriors Act and the National Defense Authorization Act.

S. 1233 would increase access to VA health care for combat veterans, extending the period of eligibility during which recently released or discharged combat veterans have unfettered access to VA care from 2 to 5 years. This provision will help ensure that these newest combat veterans have more time to identify and deal with invisible wounds, such as traumatic brain injury and PTSD. Another key provision of the bill relating to the treatment of invisible wounds is a requirement that VA provide a servicemember with a mental health evaluation within 30 days of making such a request.

S. 1233 also would enhance care for older veterans already in the VA system. It would repeal the 2003 VA regulation which barred Priority 8 veterans, so-called ``higher-income'' veterans, from enrolling in the VA health care system, essentially re-opening the system to these veterans. Many issues have been raised this year with regard to access to VA care for veterans residing in more rural areas, and S. 1233 includes an entire section aimed at looking at ways to increase access for rural veterans.

I am also very proud of the provisions in S. 1233 that seek to expand and enhance services for homeless veterans. We all recognize the sad reality that veterans suffer disproportionately from homelessness. S. 1233 would not only increase the resources available to community-based entities that provide reintegration services to those who are already homeless, it would also provide supportive services to low-income veterans to help prevent homelessness.

This bill also contains a significant increase in the travel reimbursement benefit paid to certain veterans who are forced to commute long distances to access care at VA facilities. The current mileage reimbursement rate is only 11 cents per mile, and this rate has not been increased since 1978. The committee bill would increase the rate to 28 cents per mile--a substantial increase and one that will hopefully help ease the financial burden for those who have to travel sometimes hundreds of miles to get to a VA hospital or clinic.

Two other health care bills that I introduced this year are currently moving through the committee process--S. 2160, the proposed Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007, and S. 2162, the proposed Mental Health Improvements Act of 2007. The committee is scheduled to mark up both of these bills, along with two others, tomorrow. I hope to see each of them passed by the end of this year.

For too many veterans, returning home from battle will not bring an end to conflict. They will return home, but the things they have done and seen in combat will follow them. Invisible wounds such as PTSD are complicated and can manifest themselves in many different ways. Studies have estimated that as many as 1 out of every 5 Iraq

war veterans are likely to suffer from readjustment issues. It is clear that action is necessary on the part of Congress to ensure that VA is equipped to deal with these issues.

In April, the committee held a hearing dedicated to veterans' mental health concerns and VA's response. We heard very compelling testimony from witnesses who suffered the consequences of invisible wounds in their families and their own lives. Randall Omvig spoke of his son's suicide upon returning from Iraq. Tony Bailey spoke of his son's struggle with substance abuse, and of his ultimate death from it. Patrick Campbell shared his own experience with PTSD and the experiences of his fellow servicemembers. Their touching and often painful stories put human faces on an issue that is to often reduced to numbers.

The proposed Mental Health Improvements Act is a direct outgrowth of that hearing and the testimony given by those who have suffered with mental health issues and by their family members. The bill addresses the immediate needs of veterans by ensuring high quality mental health services at VA facilities and in their communities. The measure also seeks to address the plight of veterans who suffer both from PTSD and substance abuse.

S. 2160, the proposed Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007, would enhance VA's pain management program. It is estimated that nearly 30 percent of Americans--some 86 million people--suffer from chronic or acute pain every year. A recent study conducted by VA researchers in Connecticut found that nearly 50 percent of veteran patients that are seen at VA facilities reported that they experience pain regularly.

While pain increases in severity with age, it is also a growing problem among younger veterans who have been injured in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these veterans are coming home with severe injuries--often traumatic brain injuries--that require intensive rehabilitation. In some cases, younger veterans will have to live with the long-term effects of their injuries, of which pain is a large and debilitating part.

Pain management is an area of health care that by many accounts is not yet to up to par, in both the private and public sectors. S. 2160 would standardize VA's pain management program on a national, systemwide level, by requiring VA to establish a pain care initiative at every VA health care facility. Every hospital and clinic would be required to employ a professionally recognized pain assessment tool or process, and ensure that every patient who is determined to be in chronic or acute pain is treated appropriately. The bill also calls for comprehensive research on pain management to improve care for chronic pain.

During this session, I introduced S. 1163, the proposed Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act of 2007, a bill that would offer enhanced benefits to veterans who suffer from service-connected impairment of vision. The bill was amended in committee and the language that was favorably reported to the full Senate was inserted into H.R. 797, the House companion, and passed on November 2. The Senate-passed H.R. 797 would broaden the benefit eligibility requirements for two distinct groups of veterans with impaired vision due to service--those with service-connected blindness in one eye who subsequently suffer loss of vision in the other eye later in life and those who receive special monthly compensation for multiple disabilities, including vision impairment.

The amended bill also includes a series of provisions that would enhance memorial and burial benefits for veterans and private cemeteries, including permanently authorizing VA to provide government headstones or markers for the privately marked graves of veterans interred at private cemeteries; instructing VA to design a medallion or other device to signify a decedent's veteran status, to be placed on a privately purchased headstone or marker, as an alternative to a Government-Furnished headstone or marker; extending the time limit for States to be reimbursed for the unclaimed remains of veterans; and authorizing $5 million for operational and maintenance expenses at State cemeteries. The provisions in the bill are fully paid for through legislative repeal of a Court of Veterans Appeals decision which inappropriately extended a needs-based benefit to a population that Congress did not intend to receive it.

Because inflation erodes the value of the dollar, Congress is responsible for adjusting compensation for service-connected disabilities. This year I sponsored S. 423, the proposed Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2007. The veterans' COLA legislation ensures that the purchasing power of veterans' benefits, including compensation for veterans and assistance for their survivors, is maintained. This annual COLA is done in recognition of the Nation's gratitude towards veterans young and old for their service and sacrifices.

As the sponsor of the Senate version of this bill, I was pleased to support the passage of the House companion, H.R. 1284. I applaud Congress and the President for their work in making it law as of Monday, November 5, 2007. I hope veterans, including the 17,000 recipients of compensation who are served by VA's Honolulu Regional Office, benefit from this demonstration of our appreciation.

Oversight investigations carried out by committee staff uncovered concerns in the veterans' benefits system as well. To improve the benefits system, the committee reported S. 1315, the proposed Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill would improve veterans' life insurance, adaptable housing, education benefits, and provide the committee with more oversight data. It would also address a 60-year wrong that is still being done to Filipino veterans who served under the U.S. Armed Forces during World War II.

In the years since the end of the Second World War, Filipino veterans and their advocates, especially my distinguished colleague, Senator Inouye, have worked tirelessly to secure these veterans the status they were promised when they agreed to fight under U.S. command in defense of their homeland and to protect U.S. interests in the region.

This bill would also more than double the maximum amount of Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance that a service-connected disabled veteran may purchase from $90,000 to $200,000. The VMLI program was established in 1971 and is available to those service-connected disabled veterans who have received specially adapted housing grants from VA. In the event of the veteran's death, the veteran's family is protected because VA will pay the balance of the mortgage owed up to the maximum amount of insurance purchased.

The measure would also establish a new program of insurance for service-connected disabled veterans that would provide up to a maximum of $50,000 in level premium term life insurance coverage. This new program would be available to service-connected disabled veterans who are less than 65 years of age at the time of application. Under the new program, eligible service-connected veterans would be able to purchase, in increments of $10,000, up to a maximum amount of $50,000 in insurance.

S. 1315 would also increase the amount of supplemental life insurance available to totally disabled veterans by 50 percent, from $20,000 to $30,000. This provision stems from S. 643, the proposed Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2007, which I introduced in February of this year. Many totally disabled veterans find it difficult to obtain commercial life insurance. This legislation will give totally disabled veterans better life insurance, a small measure of support for veterans who sacrificed so much.

In addition, this bill would expand eligibility for retroactive benefits from traumatic injury protection coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance. This insurance program went into effect on December 1, 2005. All insured servicemembers under SGLI from that point forward were covered under traumatic injury protection regardless of where their injuries occur. However, individuals sustaining traumatic injuries between October 7, 2001, and November 30, 2005, which were not incurred as a direct result of Operations Enduring or Iraqi Freedom, are not eligible for a retroactive payment under the traumatic injury protection program. S. 1315 would expand eligibility to these individuals.

The reported bill would allow for home improvements for totally disabled servicemembers prior to release from active duty. This provision is very important because many servicemembers return home to finish their rehabilitation and recuperation prior to discharge from the military. Their homes need to be adapted so that they can live comfortably and independently.

S. 1315 also contains a number of provisions derived from S. 1215 which I introduced on April 25 that would make four small but necessary changes in existing laws relating to education and employment. First, it would restore the funding cap on the amount of funding available for State Approving Agencies to the fiscal year 2007 level of $19 million. Without this restoration, these entities that assist VA in approving programs of education would be facing a reduction of more than 30 percent beginning in fiscal year 2008. It is particularly important for SAAs to have adequate resources as more veterans return to civilian life and begin to use their educational benefits.

Second, it would update the special unemployment study required to be submitted by the Secretary of Labor to the Congress by requiring that it cover veterans of Post 9/11 Global Operations. It would also require the report to be submitted on an annual, rather than a biennial, basis. By updating this report, we will have more data available to us on more recent groups of veterans those who served and are serving in the Gulf War and Post 9/11 Global Operations. This should better help us assess the needs of current veterans entering the work force and develop appropriate responses.

Third, the bill would extend for 2 years a temporary increase in the monthly educational assistance allowance for apprenticeship or other on-the-job training. Eliminating the temporary increase would mean a monthly benefit rate cut on veterans enrolled in this type of training and remove marketable incentive to encourage individuals to accept trainee positions they might not otherwise consider.

Finally, the bill would provide for a waiver of the residency requirement for State veterans' employment and training directors. By giving the Secretary of Labor the ability to waive the 2-year residency requirement, this provision would help ensure that the best qualified individuals from any state may be considered for SDVET vacancies.

Both S. 1233 and S. 1315 were reported to the Senate in late August and have been pending floor action ever since. It is most unfortunate that we have been unable to reach agreement to proceed to their consideration, due in part to an abrupt and unexpected change in the minority committee leadership. Late last week, just days before Veterans Day, the other side of the aisle affirmatively blocked consideration of this important legislation that has the support of a majority of the members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Let me be clear--I do not expect all Members to support or agree with these bills, only to allow for their consideration by the full Senate. If members have amendments to offer, bring them forward. We can then craft an agreement under which the Senate might do its work and debate these bills.

One final legislative item that I wish to mention--recently, I worked with my colleague Senator Webb on a matter of symbolic and real importance to servicemen and women as well as to veterans. Concerned that the Department of the Army was in a rush to replace the Tomb of the Unknown at Arlington National Cemetery, I introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act requiring the Army to prepare a comprehensive report for Congress before any further action could be taken. I am hopeful that this provision will be in the final agreement on the NDAA and look forward to the report, and its recommendations on how to best steward this national treasure.

As chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am mindful of the employment issues facing veterans, members of the Guard and Reserves, and their families as they seek to move from the military to the civilian workforce. Making this transition is never easy, and for younger veterans it can be particularly difficult. For members of the National Guard and Reserves, returning to a job they previously held may be challenging for a variety of reasons. For family members, the uncertainty of multiple and extended deployments poses different obstacles. Finally, the obstacles facing those who are disabled during their service can sometimes seem overwhelming. The needs of these individuals deserve our utmost attention and resources.

The committee has held two oversight hearings on employment issues this session. The more recent of the two hearings focused specifically on the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act of 1994, or USERRA. As our troops are returning home from battle, many of them seek to return to the jobs that they held prior to their military service, particularly those serving in Guard and Reserve units. I must admit to being particularly upset at the volume of USERRA claims related to Federal service. It is simply wrong that individuals who were sent to war by their government should, upon their return, be put in the position of having to do battle with that same government in order to regain their jobs and benefits.

It is well known that veterans make good employees. Despite the challenges many face, veterans across the country are working and excelling in the labor force. They know how to work and they bring with them a wealth of expertise and experience. I believe the employment data supports my belief since rates of unemployment for veterans generally are lower than their nonveteran counterpart. However, the rate of unemployment for younger veterans and those recently separated from active duty tends to be higher than their nonveteran peers. I pledge to continue to pursue these issues aggressively in the months ahead.

The issues regarding veterans' educational benefits are especially important to me. Having attended college at the University of Hawaii under the original World War II GI bill, I know the value of this important benefit first hand.

The complexity and the importance of the issues surrounding the various education assistance programs administered by VA have been heard at two hearings this session. I plan to build off of the findings from both hearings for the committee's future work in this area. Educational assistance benefit has an important role in terms of a readjustment benefit for returning veterans and servicemembers. Properly tailored, these same benefits form an important keystone in recruiting and retaining high caliber young men and women in the Armed Forces. The balance between these twin goals is very complex and needs careful examination.

I am concerned that the current structure of benefits has some flaws. It is disturbing to me that servicemembers who are in the line of fire and who place their own safety in jeopardy in service to our country have to pay for their educational benefits. It is also disturbing that members of the Guard and Reserve who complete multiple deployments in combat situations run the risk of having no educational benefits available to them.

I do not expect to see a quick or easy answer for veterans' education benefits reform. I believe we will need to build a foundation for cooperation, compromise and consensus building. That will take some time. But I believe this process has begun, and that by working together, we will be able to develop something that is really meaningful to veterans, their families, and their futures.

As I noted earlier, the committee held seven field hearings over the year. The first, chaired by Senator Brown, was held on May 29, 2007, in New Philadelphia, OH, and focused on the issues facing veterans in the rural areas of Appalachia. Two months later, the committee held its second field hearing, chaired by Senator Testor, again focusing on the needs of rural veterans. This hearing was held on July 21, 2007, in Great Falls, MT. These hearings, along with the insights of our committee members, enabled the committee to develop and mark up legislation to address certain issues facing rural veterans.

On August 17, 2007, Senator Murray chaired a field hearing in Tacoma, WA. The hearing focused on the mental health care services available to veterans and servicemembers in the State of Washington.

In August, I chaired a series of field hearings in my home State of Hawaii, on the islands of Maui, Oahu, and the Big Island. These hearings brought high-ranking VA officials from Washington, DC, to examine the state of VA services for Hawaii's veterans and returning servicemembers.

On August 28, 2007, the committee held a field hearing in Augusta, GA, on cooperation and collaboration between VA and DOD, chaired by Senator Isakson. The specific focus of the hearing was on VA and DOD care for wounded servicemembers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.

The committee has also carried out aggressive oversight activity during this session. Since January, the majority staff has conducted 95 days of oversight involving 28 trips to 18 states as well as to Korea, Guam and American Samoa. Oversight investigations have included visits to nine separate VA regional offices.

During these nine visits, oversight staff reviewed a total of 119 individual veteran claim files, including 45 claim files for members of the National Guard and various Reserve units. Claims were selected for review based upon claims for service-connected disability due to traumatic brain injuries, posttraumatic stress disorder, or musculoskeletal conditions. In particular, the reviews were conducted to identify any systemic problems impeding the fair and efficient adjudication of veterans' claims.

On a national level, one of the most critical issues identified by the claims review was a VA regulation which resulted in the denial of a rating higher than 10 percent for almost all traumatic brain injuries, or TBI, claims. As noted earlier, TBI has been described as a signature wound of the current conflicts. Medical evidence supports the view that severe long-term consequences can result from blast injuries involving improvised explosive devices, or IED, such as those used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite this, VA adjudicators believed that they could not authorize a rating in excess of 10 percent, or $115 per month, because of a current VA regulation.

Upon learning of this problem, I contacted VA's Under Secretary for Benefits, Daniel Cooper, to ask why veterans with migraine headaches were eligible for higher disability ratings than combat veterans with TBI. I was pleased when Under Secretary Cooper informed me that VA adjudicators have been instructed to stop limiting ratings to 10 percent if not warranted. However, because Under Secretary Cooper's instruction is not binding upon the Board of Veterans Appeals or the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, I also wrote to the Acting Secretary for Veterans Affairs, Gordon Mansfield, to ask that the ``10 percent and no more'' regulation be rescinded. I understand that VA is now working on new regulations for the adjunction of TBI claims which will hopefully resolve this matter. I will continue to monitor these claims and VA's actions.

In addition to the restrictive instruction in the rating schedule, it appears that neither the military services nor VA are providing comprehensive and thorough evaluations of veterans with mild and moderate TBI. While veterans who are being treated at polytrauma centers appear to be getting appropriate diagnosis and treatment, this is not true for veterans with significant, but less severe injuries. I believe that it is imperative that veterans with silent wounds, such as mild and moderate TBI have a comprehensive evaluation of their signs and symptoms by appropriate medical specialists. New data, such as the recently released information from VA that nearly 6 percent of the veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan screened have sustained traumatic brain injuries, adds to the importance of legislation that improves VA's ability to respond aggressively.

Review of service medical records for claims involving PTSD indicated poor follow-up, assessment and referral of servicemembers who endorsed symptoms of PTSD on postdeployment surveys. This matter has been noted by the GAO and others. In some cases, veterans were discharged for a ``personality disorder'' which was not manifested prior to combat exposure and with no evaluation of classic PTSD symptoms. In other cases, veterans with significant psychiatric symptoms were not considered for a military disability retirement, but were awarded benefits by VA upon discharge.

The committee's oversight investigations indicate that VA generally did a better assessment of claims for service-connected PTSD than the military services. However, for some disorders, VA will not grant service-connection for the small number of veterans who were diagnosed with PTSD during military service without independent verification of the stressor which gave rise to the diagnosis by military doctors. Some veterans who served in Iraq, but did not receive a medal acknowledging their participation in combat, have experienced difficulty establishing their ``personal participation in combat'' in order to validate the existence of a combat stressor.

Under current law, veterans who allege disabilities related to their combat experience may prove their claim without presentation of official military documents. In order to clarify this issue and provide combat veterans with the benefits intended, I recently introduced S. 2309, the proposed Compensation for Combat Veterans Act. This bill would provide that service in a combat zone, recognized as such under the Internal Revenue Code, shall be sufficient proof that the veteran engaged in combat for purposes of the relaxed evidentiary requirement. I hope that we will be able to address this issue in the coming months.

There is no question that the Guard and Reserve have experienced difficulties due to our current combat engagements, in a fashion quite similar to branches such as the Army and Marine Corps. There is some concern that members of the National Guard and Reserve units receive less favorable consideration of their service-connected claims than members of the Armed Forces. While oversight investigations did not substantiate allegations of less favorable treatment for Guard and Reserve claimants, other issues may require further analysis. Many regional office staff reported significant difficulties in obtaining copies of the medical records of members of the Guard and Reserve. As a result, I wrote to the National Guard Bureau to express my deep concern about a policy that I had been told exists in some states that requires National Guard members to sign a release form before their Service Medical Records can be shared with VA for purposes of adjudicating a claim for compensation benefits. Acting upon my request, the National Guard Bureau sent guidance to the field that removes the requirement that servicemembers sign release forms to have their records provided to VA.

VA cannot be expected to end the benefits backlog if it lacks the staff to adjudicate veterans claims. While VA froze hiring in this area, there has been an increase in the number and complexity of claims received. As a consequence, the backlog has ballooned beyond already disconcerting levels. Although the infusion of additional monies for staff should improve the situation, some offices have too few experienced staff compared to the number of new hires. Oversight studies have found that less experienced staff is more likely to make errors on veterans' claims.

In some cases, service medical records are maintained in an electronic format and are not provided to VA adjudicators in any form. In other cases, medical reports are scanned into the Veterans Health Administration electronic records, but are not able to be viewed by VA adjudicators who use a CAPRI system to access VHA records. I have questioned VA about the need to make these records available to VBA and am awaiting a response.

While the committee does much direct oversight, as chairman, I also rely on the VA's inspector general. Indeed, the IG has consistently served as the committee's right hand in the execution of our oversight responsibilities. In the last year alone, the IG has provided us with a number of professional inquests and reports on issues of critical importance to veterans' health care. In the areas of traumatic brain injury, mental health, and substance abuse, among others, the IG has identified the problems and solutions with an insightfulness that few can match. The IG has also responded to my investigation requests in an efficient and collegial manner. The IG is, without question, the central gear in VA's internal

controls and quality assurance mechanism.

All American's have a role to play in honoring veterans. Ordinary citizens give in extraordinary ways, such as volunteering at VA hospitals and VA shelters, and supporting local Veterans Service Organizations. For those of us who serve in Congress, we have a special privilege and responsibility to honor veterans by ensuring that they receive the benefits and care they have earned through service. This Congress has done much for veterans already, but there is more to be done.

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs will continue to do its share throughout this Congress. To name just two items of pending business, we will hold a markup tomorrow on pending legislation, including a bill that is designed to improve significantly VA's programs which address the mental health needs of veterans, especially those recently returned from combat, and second, the Committee is preparing to consider the nomination of Dr. James Peake to become Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

I close with this thought: On the battlefield, one never leaves behind a fallen comrade. Similarly, veterans should never be left behind by a system designed to care for and honor them. We cannot stand by while veterans who have fought for our country have to fight to get the care and benefits they have earned through their service. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs will respond to whatever challenges may arise in our work on behalf of those who rose up to defend and serve our Nation. To our veterans: Our thoughts, prayers, gratitude, honor and pride are with you, not only on Veterans Day, but always.

If the Senator will yield for a quick question?

I wanted to ask the distinguished Senator, earlier before he was able to come to the floor, there was a unanimous consent request offered with regard to the ALS registry, and I, on his behalf, lodged an objection, although I have no personal objection. I just want to ask the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma if it is his understanding it was on his behalf?

Mr. President, I understand why we find ourselves in this terrible posture today and why some people are calling this Congress the broken Congress, the dysfunctional Congress. If you look at the chart that was alluded to a moment ago about the last 31 days of the Senate, we have had 15 days of the last 31 days actually in session. We have had 10 rollcall votes. We have had 10 rollcall votes in the last 31 days. As a matter of fact, we should be having rollcall votes now on the farm bill, which is the bill I thought was before the Senate. But, instead, our colleagues from the other side of the aisle decided to put on this show for the American people to try to portray themselves as passing legislation, although they knew it could not be done in the manner in which they proposed--while we should be passing the farm bill.

Let me talk for a moment about the opportunities that they have squandered by their mismanagement of the calendar over this last year. I asked the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, if he would agree to a unanimous consent request, and also the majority leader, to help fund our troops who are in harm's way during a time of war. They objected to that.

As a matter of fact, Republicans attempted to call up the Veterans appropriations bill before the Veterans Day holiday, and the Democrats objected to bringing up that bill. Just to be clear, this is the appropriations bill that funds veterans affairs and military construction and is important not only to keeping our commitments to our veterans but to maintaining a decent quality of life for the families who are left behind while their loved one is in harm's way in Iraq or Afghanistan and other dangerous places across the world.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked that appropriations bill like they blocked the emergency funding for the troops that is needed in order to avoid the 100,000 notices to civilian employees of the Department of Defense that they are going to be laid off. They are going to get those notices before Christmas that they are going to be laid off by mid-February unless Congress does the job it should have done a long time ago. That is not even to mention--which I will mention--the funding necessary for the Department of Defense to operate in Iraq and Afghanistan to root out al-Qaida and other foreign fighters, Islamic extremists who are trying to kill American

soldiers and who, if given an opportunity to reorganize themselves in Iraq, would use that as another launching pad to carry out murderous attacks against Americans and our allies.

Just to be clear, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, asked me about a meeting where the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State were present. I explained, as I have just explained here today, what the situation would be like if we failed to act, and as a result of their objection, we are not acting on a timely basis.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Deputy Secretary of Defense to the Republican leader that is dated December 7, 2007, signed by Gordon England to the Honorable Mitch McConnell.

Mr. President, as the letter makes clear, while the Department of Defense has the ability to fund the troops in the field until mid-February--around March for the Marine Corps--this comes at great expense to those in the Department of Defense, both in and out of uniform. The only reason the Department of Defense can basically rob Peter to pay Paul in terms of paying its bills is because other activities will not be funded, to include training, repair of equipment, and salaries. This letter makes clear that under the current law, furlough notices must soon be issued, potentially right around the time Christmas hits.

This is not any way to run the business of our Nation. Unfortunately, because of the way our colleagues have led the Senate, we have squandered a tremendous opportunity to solve the problems the American people sent us here to solve.

We have had 66 votes on cloture motions--in other words, efforts to force legislation down the throat of the minority without an opportunity for debate or amendment. That is a guaranteed recipe for failure. As everyone in this body knows, under the rules of the Senate, neither the majority nor the minority can have their own way without bipartisan cooperation. That is the way to get things done. But, rather than get things done for the American people, what we have seen is a ``my way or the highway'' approach on the part of the leadership on the other side of the aisle. That is the reason we have had 63 votes, 63 votes so far this session, on the war in Iraq, with various attempts on the other side of the aisle either to attach strings to that money or to impose arbitrary deadlines on our commanders in the field or what I would submit is basically to insist on surrender dates.

These are the same folks who called the surge a failure before it even started. They have said they supported the troops but yet, when it comes time to show their support by making sure they have the funding for the equipment and the training, to pay salaries, and to maintain a decent quality of life for their loved ones who are left behind, instead of acting on that stated support for the troops, have failed to act.

I know the other side of the aisle has given us a copy of various unanimous consent requests to give us fair notice of their intention to ask for unanimous consent, and we have done the same.

On behalf of this side of the aisle, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2363, which is funding for military construction and veterans affairs.

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

Mr. President, I am disappointed to hear the objection. This is the same Veterans appropriations bill and Military Construction bill that was passed this summer by the Senate and this summer as well by the House. Why is it that it has been delayed all this time? This is funding for the very veterans who have sacrificed so much and given so much in the service to this country who are being told: No, we are going to hold that money back because essentially you are part of our political plans to put together a huge Omnibus appropriations at the end of the year and try to force the President and the minority to accept bloated Washington spending, when, in fact, there is no objection to passage of that Veterans bill or Military Construction bill, and it should be passed today by unanimous consent without further delay.

Mr. President, I have one other unanimous consent request I would like to offer. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3997, a bill to provide tax relief for our troops. I further ask that the amendment at the desk, which is the text of S. 2340 and provides for full funding of our troops, emergency funding for our troops, be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed.

Mr. President, I regret the obstruction on the part of the majority. This provision, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Tax Relief Act, would ensure that our military members are treated fairly under our own tax laws. It would make clear that combat pay can be treated as income for purposes of qualifying for the earned-income tax credit. It would also make improvements to the rules for mortgage bonds for veterans, clarify rules regarding survivor and disability payments, and continue to provide pay and benefits to National Guard and Reserve members called to Active Duty. I have already mentioned the component of it that would provide full funding on an emergency basis to our troops who are currently fighting and, unfortunately, some being wounded and dying in service to their country and protection of our freedoms, which has now been objected to once again.

I will finish my remarks for this period where I started and say that we have squandered our opportunities to govern. The only way you can govern

in the Congress is by building a governing coalition, Democrats working with Republicans to try to solve the Nation's problems. When one side or the other tries to jam their agenda down the throat of the other side, it does not work, and exhibit A is the dismal record of this broken Congress during this last year.

I see why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are getting nervous, why their desperation to pass legislation is beginning to show, because they realize they had the opportunity to lead, they realize they had the opportunity to govern, but they have squandered that opportunity. So now, in the last week and a half before the Christmas recess, they are out here trying to act as if the minority has obstructed them, when, in fact, if they had only met us halfway and worked with us to solve some of the big issues that confront our country in a bipartisan and constructive way, we would have met them halfway and we would have solved many of those problems.

I will.

The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is exactly correct. My recollection is only 1 out of the 12 appropriations bills has actually been signed by the President, and that was after the fiscal year ended, meaning that essentially Congress is doing what no business, what no family could get away with; that is, basically to pay the bills on a timely basis. So it is another example of this broken Congress and squandered opportunity to work together to do our basic duty.

Unfortunately, I think what we have seen now is an unfortunate game being played out where, rather than pass those bills on an individual basis, there is going to be an attempt to roll them into a giant Omnibus appropriations bill, which someone observed the other day is Latin for ``hold on to your wallet.'' The President has insisted that he is going to hold the line, as he well should, on wasteful Washington spending which would require tax increases on the American people at a time when the economy is entering into a flat period. It is exactly the wrong time--if there is ever a right time--to raise taxes.

I would.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is absolutely correct.

I would further say in response to his question, you know there is a marked contrast to the tone that was set at the very beginning of this Congress with the new majority in charge. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, who was on the floor earlier, said:

I think the people across America said to us in this last

election, we want you to compromise, we want you to find

solutions, we do not want you to play to a draw with nothing

to show for it.

Well, that is in the Congressional Record on January 4, 2007. I agreed with that statement then. But, as I say, it stands in marked contrast to what we have seem demonstrated this last year.

The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, who was on the floor earlier, on that same date said:

All too often we in Washington get lost in the world of

Washington, the focus on getting something done, something

done for the American people gets lost.

Well, I wish they had heeded their own advice because what we have to show for this last year is very little, indeed. Failing to take care of our most basic responsibilities, as the Senator from New Hampshire has pointed out, to fund the Government on a timely basis--the fact is, we find ourselves in a terrible position now, with just a few days remaining until the Christmas break to get that work done.

Mr. President, I agree again with the statement made and respond in the affirmative to the question propounded by the Senator from New Hampshire. This Congress has spent 11 months holding Iraq political votes that have had no chance of becoming law.

We have had 63 votes thus far this session. In the meantime, while the majority has been fiddling, the business of the American people has not been done. I think about the issues besides those of national security that cry out for solutions, things such as border security and immigration reform. Couldn't we have used some of this time more constructively to solve one of the biggest domestic issues confronting the country today? How about energy policy? We have an energy bill that raises taxes on domestic producers and encourages our dependence on foreign oil, when we could have worked together to pass an energy policy that would have prepared us for the future. We have not done that. Health care, which is a tremendous concern of my constituents in Texas and elsewhere, we could have acted to deal with the health care access cost and quality crisis in this country, but we have not.

I know there are other colleagues who wish to speak.

I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business on our side?

Mr. President, in a moment I am going to yield and ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama be recognized for up to 10 minutes, followed by the Senator from Wyoming, Dr. Barrasso, for up to 10 minutes.

To be clear, we have had objections from the majority, from our Democratic friends, to legislation that is vitally important to our veterans and to our active-duty military: the Veterans' Administration and military construction funding bill that was passed by both Houses of the Congress last summer and which has been held up and held hostage to the political games here in Washington, as well as the emergency troop funding that is needed to fund ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which we have discussed as well. This is a personal issue, as 1.7 million veterans live in my State in Texas. We have 15 major military bases where military families live and work. One out of every 10 active-duty military members who wears the uniform of the United States calls Texas home, and we have guards and reservists who are also serving valiantly in Iraq and elsewhere.

The bill which has been blocked by the majority would provide $20 billion in military construction funds important for our troops and quality of life for our military families, and it is important to my State of Texas because of our support for the troops and military families. It contains almost $90 billion for our veterans, which includes their health care, upgrading facilities, money to hire additional claims processors so veterans don't have to wait so long to get the benefits to which they are entitled. As I said, there are about 1.7 million veterans in Texas and they need these funds, and they shouldn't be held hostage to the political games here in Washington with regard to an omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains on this side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining be evenly split between the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2318, a bill that provides permanent relief from the alternative minimum tax, which extends the 2001 tax cuts and the 2003 capital gains dividends tax relief, and that the bill be read the third time and passed.

I further ask that the bill be held at the desk until the House companion arrives, and that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of the Senate-passed bill be inserted, and the House bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. President, I am disappointed, and I think the American people are going to be disappointed if we don't deal with the alternative minimum tax, which, of course, was targeted at the ``rich'' when it was passed but which now affects 6 million taxpayers and which, if we don't act, will affect 23 million middle-class taxpayers next year.

My distinguished colleague didn't mention the capital gains and dividends tax relief, which has been so important as a stimulus to the economy, which has resulted in 50 months of uninterrupted job growth since we passed that legislation. I hope we will continue to work on that.

Unfortunately, given the compression of time due to the squandering of opportunities earlier this year to act on this important legislation, I am afraid we are not going to get it done before we break for Christmas. The IRS is going to have to send out notices to many new taxpayers of their increased tax bill under this AMT, unless we act promptly.

I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation I am introducing entitled the School Accountability Improvements Act. We all know about No Child Left Behind, the Federal legislation that was introduced in 2001. We recognize that NCLB made significant changes to Federal requirements for school districts in our States. Many of these changes have been very positive and truly quite necessary. Because of No Child Left Behind, there is clearly more national attention being paid to ensure that school districts and the States are held accountable for the achievement of students with disabilities and for those who are economically disadvantaged and for minority students.

In Alaska, this has meant, for example, that more of our urban school districts are paying closer attention than ever to the needs of our Alaska Native students. People across the Nation are also more aware that a teacher's knowledge of the subject matter and his or her ability to teach that subject are perhaps the most important factors in a child's achievement in school. Teachers, parents, administrators, and communities have more data now than they have ever had, more data about the achievement of the individual students and the subgroups of students and about our schools. With that data, we are making changes to school policies and procedures, and more students are now getting the help they need to succeed.

While these are just a few of the positive effects of No Child Left Behind, we recognize there have been problems. This is not surprising, as it is quite difficult to write one law that will work for a large urban city such as New York City in the East and have that be made generally applicable to a small remote rural community such as Nuiqsuit, AK.

My bill, the School Accountability Improvements Act, is meant to address five issues that we have identified in Alaska that are of particular concern to our State and of equal concern to other States. The first area we are focusing on would give flexibility to States regarding NCLB's highly qualified teacher requirements. In very small rural schools, particularly in my State, we will see a school where you have one teacher who is tasked with teaching multiple course subjects in the middle and in the high school grades.

Under NCLB, the requirement is that the teacher must be highly qualified in each of these subject matter areas. But I have been listening to some of the teachers out in my remote communities. They may be hired to be the English teacher, but in a remote community with a small school, something may happen during the year. Say, the science teacher or the math teacher has left in the middle of the school year-- not an uncommon situation--they are not able to get anyone into that school to help. So now the English teacher is tasked to teach another subject.

Under NCLB, he or she would then be required to be highly qualified in every subject they teach. So what my legislation would allow is for middle and high school teachers who work in schools with fewer than 200 students and that have difficulty hiring and retaining qualified teachers in these areas to be deemed to be ``highly qualified'' if they have a degree or they pass a rigorous subject matter test in one of the core subjects they teach, as long as they can demonstrate they are highly effective at delivering instruction on a State-developed performance assessment.

We are doing this in the State of Alaska now, where essentially a teacher can demonstrate, through the use of a video, their teaching methodology. But we must recognize we will have situations in our smaller schools, in our rural schools, where in order to be highly qualified in every core subject area they are teaching, we simply are not able to meet that. So we are asking for a level of flexibility for the States.

We recognize it is vital that the teachers know the subjects they teach. This is critical. But it is also unreasonable to expect teachers in these very tiny schools to meet the current requirements in every single subject they may end up teaching. It is almost impossible for school districts to find and then hire such teachers. So this provision is offered as a compromise in these limited situations.

The second area the legislation focuses on is how we determine or how we calculate Adequate Yearly Progress. My legislation would require the U.S. Department of Education to approve a State's use of a growth model for calculating Adequate Yearly Progress if that model meets the core requirements of No Child Left Behind.

Now, we know it can be useful for teachers, certainly for the administrators, to know how one group of third grade students, how one class compares to, say, the next year's class. But it is much more useful for educators, students, and parents to know how well each individual child has mastered each year's State standards.

As a parent, yes, I want to know how my son's class is advancing as a whole. But as a parent, I want to know how he is doing from year to year, not just how his third grade class did and how the next class coming up behind him is going to do. I want to know what it means for me and my child as an individual.

Schools should be held accountable for how well they are addressing each child's needs. Is the child proficient? Is he or she on track to be proficient? Or is he or she falling behind? These are things parents want to know. Are the schools making great progress in bringing all children to great proficiency, or are they maybe just missing the mark, or are they having very systemic difficulties? We know so many of the States now have very robust data systems that will allow them to track this information. NCLB should allow them to use the statistical model that is going to be most useful. It will actually be the best indicator of how each child is doing.

Another area the legislation addresses is the issue of school choice and tutoring. As you know, No Child Left Behind gives parents an opportunity to move their children out of a dysfunctional school. If the school fails to meet AYP 2 years running, then the next choice that is offered the parent is your child can go to another school. In some parts of my State, that is geographically, physically impossible, and we have made accommodations around that. In the more urban school districts in Alaska, what we have found is parents are not choosing, as a general rule, to exercise that option. They are looking for something else. The law requires school districts to offer the school choice and to set aside funds to pay for the transportation in year 2 of improvement status. Then, in year 3, schools are required to offer tutoring if they reach that needs improvement status then.

What I am suggesting in my legislation as to school choice is that moving children in year 2, if we fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress, is too early in the process. Schools should be given the opportunity to address their deficiencies first, addressing them first within the school before they transport the students all over town. I think most parents agree with this. This is why, at least in Alaska, we are seeing fewer than 2 percent of parents choosing to transfer their children to another school. They would rather have those supplemental services offered in the school to see if they can't help address the needs of the child. Then if it still does not work, let's look to the next option.

So my bill would flip the school choice and the tutoring. It would also limit the requirement for schools to offer these options to students who are not proficient rather than to all the children, including those who are being well served by the school. It would also allow the school districts to provide tutoring to students even if they are in improvement status. It is recognizing, again, we should look at the individual child and see if we can't tailor this to make it more responsive.

As you know, assessing whether a child is proficient on State standards in a reliable and valid way is difficult. It is even more difficult when the child has a disability or has limited English proficiency. Research has not caught up with assessments for these subgroups, and no one is completely sure

whether the tests they are giving these students are measuring what they know. Yet, NCLB requires that if a school does not make AYP for any subgroup for 6 years, the school district has the option to completely restructure that school. Similarly, a State has the option to restructure an entire school district.

For those truly dysfunctional schools and districts, that may be appropriate as determined by the individual district or State. But if we do not even know if the assessment scores are valid and reliable, how do we justify taking over a school, firing its teachers, turning its governance over to another entity, or other such drastic measures? We cannot. But we recognize that each child with a disability, and each child who is limited English proficient deserves the best possible education.

So that is why my bill would not allow a school or a school district to be restructured if: No. 1, the school missed AYP for one or both of those subgroups alone; and, No. 2, the school can show through a growth model that the students in those two subgroups are on track to be proficient.

Another area in the legislation we focus on is our Native heritage languages. In Alaska, Hawaii, and several other States, Native Americans are working hard to keep their heritage languages and their cultures alive. Teachers will tell you, and the research backs them up, that Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and American Indian students learn better when their heritage is a respected and vibrant part of their education. This is true of any child, but I think particularly true for these groups of Americans.

Many schools around the country that serve these students have incorporated native language programs into their early curriculums--the curriculums in grades K-3. The problem is that in many instances, there is no valid and reliable way to assess whether the students have learned their State standards in that language. Neither is it valid to test what a student knows in a language they do not speak well.

The example I will give you is that in the Lower Kuskokwim School District, in many of the schools, in an effort to get the children to connect with their education and to connect with their Yupik heritage, Yupik is taught in grades K-3. It is an immersion level program. If you go out there, the children are reading in Yupik. They are doing their math in Yupik. They are doing science experiments in Yupik. But then, in grade 3, they are required to test, under NCLB, in English.

Now, not surprisingly, the children are not doing well on these tests. We need to anticipate the results. If you have not taught a child in a language in which they are going to be tested, perhaps, initially, they are not going to be performing at the level we want.

I want to impress upon my colleagues the importance I believe we should place on allowing for those heritage languages to be preserved, to encourage our students in languages. Our research tells us--and I can tell you from a very personal experience with my two boys, who were part of a Spanish immersion program from the time they were in kindergarten through 8th grade in the public schools in Anchorage, they learned their sciences and math and geography and all their subjects in Spanish as well as English. Initially, you are a little anxious because: Are the test scores going to measure up? But what we can tell you is that by the time the children are being tested, certainly up in middle school, they are not only testing strong--very strong in both languages--but they know a second language very well.

What my legislation will do in this area is allow schools with Native American language programs in States where there is no assessment in that heritage language to count the third graders--the first time they take the standardized tests--to count the students for participation rate only. It would then allow the school to make AYP if those students are proficient or on track to be proficient in grades 4 through 7.

Then, the final area of my legislation is what I am calling the parent piece. As a parent, we know--you know; my colleague from the State of Washington was very involved with education before she came to the Senate as well--we all know as parents how important it is to be involved in our children's education.

At the end of the day, not only did my husband and I check on our boys' homework, we asked them: What happened today? What is going on? I was PTA president at my kids' elementary school.

NCLB recognizes that in many ways it is very important that parents are part of a child's education. But we also recognize we can be doing more. My bill would amend title II of NCLB, which authorizes subgrants for preparing, training, and recruiting teachers and principals, to allow--but not mandate--these funds to be used to develop parental engagement strategies, to train educators to communicate more effectively with parents, and better involve parents in their schools.

We all know how great our Nation's teachers are. But our reality is, very few of them graduate from college having had a course on how to effectively communicate with parents. They know how important it is, but they are taught no techniques. Teachers are busy people. When a parent shows up at a classroom door and says: Hey, I am here to help, teachers often do not know how to react, how to allow them to help. Many teachers have difficulty communicating with parents, who may be working two jobs or have a different cultural background or language. This section of the bill would allow schools to spend some of their teacher training funds on these sorts of issues if they feel it would benefit their students.

I know these five issues are not the only ones my colleagues and Americans may have with the No Child Left Behind Act. I have been talking with Alaskans all over the State about NCLB since I first came to the Senate. I look forward to working very hard on the reauthorization of the law this year with my colleagues. These, though, are the five issues that educators and parents in Alaska have told me are the most urgent for them, and I look forward to working to include them in the reauthorization as we move forward.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Texas for their leadership. With that leadership comes a very clear voice about the problems this current Congress is facing. They are problems that are historic in character. I was once in the majority. It was the minority who said: We can do better and, therefore, we should run the Congress. In the last election, the American people listened and they changed the Congress. While I was chairing the Veterans' Affairs Committee at that time, we lost the Congress--we, the Republicans--by a reality of dropping to 32 percent in the minds of Americans as to an effective and responsible Congress. The minority played on that. They became the majority. They took over the leadership. They made a great deal of promises. Here we are in the eleventh and a half hour headed toward the twelfth hour of this session of Congress. They have not accomplished it. They have dropped below 11 percent in favorable rating among the American people.

The American people do want to see us get along. At the same time, they want their Government to function in a timely and responsible way. That is exactly what this Congress has failed to do.

I come to the floor to speak about two issues specifically. The assistant majority leader came to the floor earlier today and asked unanimous consent that S. 1233 and S. 1315 be allowed to come to the floor under unanimous consent or to come to the floor with debate and final passage. The reason he had to do that was before the Thanksgiving recess, I came to the floor and objected to the movement of those bills. The Senator from Oklahoma also now objects to the movement of those bills. I think it is very important that not only does the record bear why we objected but the American people clearly understand why we are objecting, because these are veterans bills.

These are bills that deal with critical needs of America's veterans. I was once chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I am not going to suggest that I need to add credentials to my record as supporting America's veterans. My responsibility is to make sure the services to our veterans get delivered in a responsible and timely way, that the truly needy service-connected and poor veteran gets served, and that the needs of those coming in out of Afghanistan and Iraq, who then become veterans out of our active service, are met in an immediate way. That is the responsibility of this Congress. It is not to keep adding and adding and adding new programs that may or may not be necessary and adding and adding and adding billions of dollars that anyone in service to veterans can say is at best questionable. It is for those reasons that I objected to those bills.

Now, let me break down why because there are some very real issues here.

S. 1233 is an important piece of legislation that a majority of those of us who supported the legislation to begin with agreed to. It is called the Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act of 2007. Any bill with that title would capture your imagination. One of the great concerns we have today is the traumatic brain injuries our men and women in service are coming out of Iraq with, especially because of the types of bombs that are being used over there. Oftentimes, this kind of injury does not show up in a veteran until he or she becomes a veteran.

If you look down through the priorities of that bill, you look at increased veterans' travel benefits--yes, rural veterans coming to veterans centers to be served; a major medical facilities project; adding to the expanded services of veterans health care; professional scholarship programs; extended time for preferred care; help for low- income veterans; traumatic brain injury program enhancement; assisted- living pilot program enhancement--all of those very valuable and very meaningful, strongly supported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee and strongly supported by this Senate.

But what happened at the last minute was that a Senator on the other side added a new program. They said: We are going to allow Priority 8 veterans to become eligible for the full service of health care under the veterans health care system. What is a Priority 8 veteran? A Priority 8 veteran is one who has no service-connected disability or injury or health care concern. Did they serve? Yes, they served. Did they sustain any injury or physical needs as a result of their service? No. Are they at the poverty level or below? No. They are above it. And in most instances--in fact, in a high percentage of them--through their own employment, they have health care.

So for a good number of years, because of costs, we who watch the veterans issues and Presidents and Secretaries of the VA have said we will not serve them. They will not be eligible for the full benefits. This President, President Bush, said: I will make them eligible, but they need to pay a small fee, a couple hundred bucks a year, to have access to the greatest health care program in the world. The minority at that time, the Democrats, said: No. They get it free of charge or they don't get it.

Well, all of a sudden into this very valuable bill they parachuted Priority 8 veterans. What does that do? Well, if you go talk to the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration, they are going to tell you that it might cause a substantial problem. Why? Because all of a sudden in this health care system there could be 1.3 million more Americans eligible for health care--not planned for, not anticipated, not budgeted for, but parachuted in, I have to believe all in the name of trying to show a concern for veterans and to demonstrate that maybe we are a little more sensitive than the other side.

What does that mean? Well, it also means the potential of between $1.2 billion more expended in 2008 and up to $8.8 billion more by 2012. Did they fund it? No. Have they stuck it in the bill? Yes. Are they trying to create a priority? Yes. Are they trying to create a new expenditure? Yes. And I said: No. Let's serve our poor and our needy and our disabled first and our traumatically brain injured and our post-traumatic stress syndrome veterans. Let's serve them now. Let's put money into the bill to do that.

So the Senator from Texas talked about the VA-MILCON bill that is right at the desk right now, sent out by the ranking minority member of the VA-MILCON Subcommittee, on which I serve, of Appropriations, Senator Hutchison. We are trying to get a vote on it. That bill--that bill alone--has nearly $8 billion worth of new spending in it for veterans. That is a near 17.5-

to 18-percent increase over last year. I believe it can be said, other than defense, to be the largest increase in a budget of all of Government for this year. But the money I am talking about, the new money for Priority 8, is not even in that one. All of this new money for veterans needs that is in the bill that we are being told cannot be passed, that we keep trying to get a vote on, does not even include the $1.5 billion to $8 billion necessary to fund this new program for veterans who are not needy, who are not service connected, and who have not been eligible for a good number of years.

That is why we are saying no. You take Priority 8 out of this, and the Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act, S. 1233, could pass, and it would pass on a voice vote because the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--have always supported our veterans. But we will not nor will I allow us to get caught in the game of first you argue on the other side that we have a war nobody likes and a President who is not managing it well, and then on the other side you are saying we are not taking care of our veterans. I reject that, and I reject it totally for these reasons.

While I was chair and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and throughout the Bush administration, we have increased the funding for veterans on an annualized basis anywhere from 10 to 12 percent. When I talk about the appropriations bill that is at the desk for veterans being a historically large increase, well, the one the year before was a historically large increase. We have never ducked our responsibility to veterans. But we must prioritize, and we must focus on the truly needy, and we must focus on those who are coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan and traumatic brain injury and all of those who continue to suffer today. That is the first bill, and it will continue to be objected to until they take out those kinds of add-ons.

Let's talk about the second bill. The second bill is S. 1315. Now, that is an interesting bill because if you look at it on its face value, you say: Yes, that makes some sense. We are going to give a veterans' benefit enhancement to a certain class of veteran. Let me tell you who that veteran is.

The bill includes roughly $900 million in new entitlement spending on an array of veterans' benefits, but what is interesting is, it is moving money away from poor, elderly, disabled and wartime U.S. veterans. It is taking effectively $2,000 annually from our veterans and moving it over to a veteran who does not even live in the United States and is not a citizen of the United States--a Filipino veteran.

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

Why I object to this--and I call this bill the ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill--is quite simple. If any of you have watched the Ken Burns PBS series ``The War,'' there is one whole segment of that about the war in the Philippines and the Filipinos who came forward to fight with Americans and even serve in American uniforms in defense of their land and ours during World War II. They did not become American citizens. They were Filipinos, and they have always received benefits. But this bill now reaches in and takes money away from our veterans, our poor veterans, because of a court case and is giving it to them.

Here is my problem. First of all, they do not live in this country, and they are not U.S. citizens. They are currently receiving benefits. But for the average U.S. veteran, their benefits, right now under law, cannot exceed $10,929 a year. That is roughly 24 percent of the average U.S. household income. But this benefit which is in this bill gives to a veteran--a non-U.S. citizen, living in the Philippines--100 percent of the average household income in the Philippines. They are taking that money away from our veterans to do it. That is the ``Robin Hood in reverse'' effect. At least Robin Hood, when he took money, left it in Nottingham. He spread it out amongst his own. Here we are taking money from our own and sending it all the way to the Philippines.

Now, let me say, and let me be very clear, Americans have treated Filipino veterans fairly. After the war, the United States provided $620 million--or $6.7 billion in today's dollars--to repair the Philippines. The United States provided $22.5 million--$196 million in today's dollars--for equipment and construction. We have a hospital in the Philippines, and Filipino veterans legally residing in the United States--in the United States--are fully eligible for all VA veterans' benefits based on their level of service. Survivors of Filipino veterans who died as a result of their service are eligible for educational assistance and all kinds of programs.

That is why I object. First of all, because we are taking money away from ours, but also because we have been more than generous since that war ended to our comrades, the Filipinos, who fought side by side with American men and women, who were in the Philippines at the time, after we were able to reclaim the Philippine Islands. So we have done wonderfully by them, and we have been very supportive of providing them with programs.

Remember, the average U.S. veterans' benefit--24 percent of U.S. average household income--is limited. Yet we are taking that money away from them now, giving it to Filipino veterans who are non-U.S. citizens, and increasing their benefit to over 100 percent of the average household income in the Philippines. U.S. dollars spent in the Philippines at that amount lifts--there is no question about it--lifts that Filipino dramatically. The question is, Is it fair? Is it equitable? My answer is, It is not. I offered to say, yes, we can bump them a little bit, but let's take the rest of this money and put it into educational benefits for our veterans coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer in the committee was no.

So that is why these bills are in trouble on the floor. They have loaded them up. They are too heavy. The tires are blowing out from under the trucks of these bills simply because too much is too much. In the instance of this, Disabled American Veterans--that great organization which is a loud spokesperson for our veterans--is saying: Whoa, wait a moment here. Enough is enough, and this is too much. They themselves oppose this legislation as it is currently written.

So here we have a funding bill on the floor with a 17.5- to 18- percent increase over last year's funding for veterans, and we are not allowed to vote on it. We have funding at the highest level ever for America's veterans, as we should and as we must, but these bills take us well beyond it in an unfunded environment or in one instance reaching in the pocket of our poor and disabled veteran and taking that money out and putting it into the pocket of a veteran living in the Philippines, who never became an American citizen, and who never came to this country, who has chosen to stay in his homeland. We now give them benefits, but this is a benefit well beyond what is even currently being offered to our own. Those are the fundamental reasons why we have objected.

I was pleased when the Senator from Texas said to the Senator from Illinois, the assistant majority leader: No. Yes, we will object, and we are not embarrassed about doing it, because there have to be priorities to our funding, especially at a time when the VA budget that is at the desk is the largest increase of a veterans' budget, to my knowledge, ever. We are proud of that, but there is a point when enough is, in fact, enough.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request for material to be inserted in the Record?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that minority views on S. 1233 and minority views on S. 1315 be printed in the Record.