Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2007

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.

Mr. President, I offer today a private immigration relief bill to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for more than 20 years. The Fulops are the parents of six U.S. citizen children. Today, they face deportation having exhausted all administrative remedies under our immigration system.

The Fulop's story is a compelling one and one which I believe merits Congress' consideration for humanitarian relief.

The most poignant tragedy to affect this family occurred in May of 2000, when the Fulops eldest child, Robert ``Bobby'' Fulop, an accomplished 15 year-old teenager, died suddenly of a heart aneurism. Bobby was considered the shining star of his family.

That same year their six-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life-threatening heart condition and a frightening situation similar to Bobby's. Not long ago, she successfully underwent heart surgery, but. requires medical supervision to ensure her good health.

The Fulop's youngest child, Matthew, was born seven weeks premature. He subsequently underwent several kidney surgeries and is still being closely monitored by physicians.

Compounding these tragedies is the fact that today the Fulops face deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 the family traveled to Hungary and remained there for more than 90 days.

Under the pre-1996 immigration law, prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, their stay in Hungary would not have been a factor in their immigration case and they would have been eligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents.

Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for permanent resident status. Due to large backlogs, the INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time their applications were considered, the new 1996 immigration law had taken effect. Given their one-time 90 day trip outside the United States, they were statutorily ineligible for relief pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

One cannot help but conclude that had the INS acted on the Fulop's application for relief from deportation in a timelier manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation under the pre-1996 law, given that they were long-term residents of the United States with U.S. citizen children and many positive factors in their favor.

The irony of this situation is that the Fulops were gone from the United States for nearly five months in 1995 because they traveled to Hungary to help Mr. Fulop's brother build his home. Mr. Fulop's brother is handicapped and they went to help remodel his home.

The Fulops are good and decent people. Mr. Fulop is a masonry contractor and the owner and president of his own construction company--Sumeg International. He has owned this business for 12 years and currently has three full-time employees.

The couple is active in their church and community. As Pastor Peter Petrovic of the Apostolic Christian Church of San Diego says in his letter of support, ``[t]he family is an exceptional asset to their community.'' Mrs. Fulop has served as a Sunday school teacher and volunteers regularly at Heritage K-8 Charter School in Escondido. Mrs. Morris, a Heritage K-8 Charter School faculty member says in her letter of support that Mrs. Fulop is ``. . . a valuable asset to our school and community.''

This is a tragic situation. Essentially, as happened to many families under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the rules of the game were changed in the middle. When the Fulops applied for relief from deportation they were eligible for suspension of deportation. By the time the INS got around to their application, nearly three years later, they were no longer eligible and in fact suspension of deportation as a form of relief ceased to exist.

The Fulops today have been in the United States since the early 1980s. Most harmful is the effect that their deportation will have on the children, all of whom were born here and who range from three years old to 19 years of age. Their eldest, Dennis, is a 4.0 honor student at Palomar Community College. His sister, Linda, has a 3.8 grade point average, is an honor student in high school, and is also taking one class at Palomar Community College.

It is my hope that Congress sees fit to provide an opportunity for this family to remain together in the United States given their many years here, the profound sadness they have already experienced and the harm that would come from their deportation to their six U.S. citizen children.

I ask unanimous consent that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Claudia Marquez Rico, a Mexican national living in Redwood City, CA.

Born in Jalisco, Mexico, Claudia was brought to the United States by her parents 16 years ago. Claudia was just 6 years old at the time. She has two younger brothers, Jose and Omar, who came to America with her, and a sister, Maribel, who was born in California and is a U.S. Citizen. America is the only home they know.

Six years ago that home was visited by tragedy. As Mr. and Mrs. Marquez were driving to work early on the morning of October 4, 2000, they were both killed in a horrible traffic accident when their car collided with a truck on an isolated rural road.

The children went to live with their aunt and uncle, Hortencia and Patricio Alcala. The Alcalas are a generous and loving couple. They are U.S. citizens with two children of their own. They took the Marquez children in and did all they could to comfort them in their grief. They supervised their schooling, and made sure they received the counseling they needed, too. The family is active in their parish at Buen Pastor Catholic Church, and Patricio Alcala serves as a youth soccer coach. In 2001, the Alcalas were appointed the legal guardians of the Marquez children.

Sadly, the Marquez family received bad legal representation. At the time of their parents' death, Claudia and Jose were minors, and qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. This category was enacted by Congress to protect children like them from the hardship that would result from deportation under such extraordinary circumstances, when a State court deems them to be dependents due to abuse, abandonment or neglect. Today, their younger brother Omar is on track to lawful permanent residence status as a special immigrant juvenile. Unfortunately, the family's previous lawyer failed to secure this relief for Claudia, and she has now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration status.

I should note that their former lawyer, Walter Pineda, is currently answering charges on 29 counts of professional incompetence and 5 counts of moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases and appears on his way to being disbarred.

I am offering legislation on Claudia's behalf because I believe that, without it, this family would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family will not remain a family for much longer.

Despite the adversity they encountered, Claudia and Jose finished school and now work together in a pet grooming store in Redwood City, where Claudia is the store manager. They support themselves, and they are dedicated to their community and devoted to their family. In fact, last year Claudia became the legal guardian of her 14-year-old sister Maribel, who lives with her and Jose at their home in Redwood City. Omar, now 17 years old, continues to live with the Alcalas so as not to interrupt his studies at Aragon High School in San Mateo. Again, Maribel is a U.S. citizen, and Omar is eligible for a green card.

Claudia has no close relatives in Mexico. She has never visited Mexico, and she was so young when she was brought to America that she has no memories of it. How can we expect her to start a new life there now?

It would be a grave injustice to add to this family's misfortune by tearing these siblings apart. This is a close family, and they have come to rely on each other heavily in the absence of their deceased parents. This bill will prevent the added tragedy of another wrenching separation.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Claudia Rico.

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru Yamada, a 24-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista, CA.

I have decided to re-introduce a private bill on his behalf because I believe that Mr. Yamada represents a model American citizen, for whom removal from this country would represent an unfair hardship. Without this legislation, Mr. Yamada will be forced to return to a country in which he lacks any linguistic, cultural or family ties.

Mr. Yamada legally entered the United States with his mother and two sisters in 1992 at the young age of 10. The family was fleeing from Mr. Yamada's alcoholic father, who had been physically abusive to his mother, the children and even his own parents. Since then, he has had no contact with his father and is unsure if he is even alive. Tragically, Mr. Yamada experienced further hardship when his mother was killed in a car crash in 1995. Orphaned at the age of 13, Mr. Yamada spent time living with his aunt before moving to Chula Vista to live with a close friend of his late mother.

The death of his mother marked more than a personal tragedy for Mr. Yamada; it also served to impede the process for him to legalize his status. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa for herself and her children qualified as her dependants. Her death revoked his legal status in the United States. In addition, Mr. Yamada's

mother was engaged to an American citizen at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have become an American citizen through this marriage.

Mr. Yamada has exhausted all administrative options under our current immigration system. Throughout high school, he contacted attorneys in the hopes of legalizing his status, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Unfortunately, time has run out and, for Mr. Yamada, the only option available to him today is private relief legislation.

For several reasons, it would be tragic for Mr. Yamada to be deported from the United States and forced to return to Japan.

First, since arriving in the United States, Mr. Yamada has lived as a model American. He graduated with honors from Eastlake High School in 2000, where he excelled in both academics and athletics. Academically, he earned a number of awards including being named an Outstanding English Student his freshman year, an All-American Scholar, and earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award. His teacher and coach, Mr. John describes him as being responsible, hard working, organized, honest, caring and very dependable. His role as the Vice- President of the Associated Student Body his senior year is an indication of Mr. Yamada's high level of leadership, as well as, his popularity and trustworthiness among his peers. As an athlete, Mr. Yamada was named the Most Inspirational Player of the Year in Junior Varsity baseball and football, as well as, Varsity football. His football coach, Mr. Jose Mendoza, expressed his admiration by saying that he has seen in Shigeru Yamada the responsibility, dedication and loyalty that the average American holds to be virtuous.

Second, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as a local volunteer. As a member of the Eastlake High School Link Crew, he helped freshman find their way around campus, offered tutoring and mentoring services, and set an example of how to be a successful member of the student body. After graduating from high school, he volunteered his time for four years as the coach of the Eastlake High School Girl's softball team. The former head coach, who has since retired, Dr. Charles Sorge, describes him as an individual full of integrity who understands that as a coach it is important to work as a team player. His level of commitment to the team was further illustrated to Dr. Sorge when he discovered, halfway through the season, that Mr. Yamada's commute to and from practice was two hours long each way. It takes an individual with character to volunteer his time to coach and never bring up the issue of how long his commute takes him each day. Dr. Sorge hopes that, once Mr. Yamada legalizes his immigration status, he will be formally hired to continue coaching the team.

Third, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would be an immense hardship for him and his family here. Mr. Yamada does not speak Japanese. He is unaware of the nation's current cultural trends. And, he has no immediate family members that he knows of in Japan. Currently, both of his sisters are in the process of legalizing their immigration status in the United States. His older sister is married to a United States citizen and his younger sister is being adopted by a maternal aunt, who is a United States citizen. Since as all of his family lives in California, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would serve to split his family apart and separate him from everyone and everything that he knows. His sister contends that her younger brother would be lost if he had to return to live in Japan on his own. It is unlikely that he would be able to find any gainful employment in Japan due to his inability to speak or read the language.

As a member of the Chula Vista community, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as an honorable individual. His teacher, Mr. Robert Hughes, describes him as being an upstanding All-American young man. Until being picked up during a routine check of riders' immigration status on a city bus, he had never been arrested or convicted of any crime. Mr. Yamada is not, and has never been, a burden on the State. He has never received any Federal or State assistance.

Currently, Mr. Yamada holds sophomore status at Southwestern Community College. However, he is taking this semester off in order to alleviate his financial burdens by working full time. He had hoped to pursue a career in law enforcement, but his plans have recently changed due to his current immigration status dilemma. Until he obtains citizenship, Mr. Yamada will be prohibited from pursuing a career in law enforcement. Due to the circumstances, Mr. Yamada has changed his career goal to that of becoming a high school teacher. Mr. Yamada's commitment to his education is admirable. He could have easily taken a different path but, through his own individual fortitude, he has dedicated himself to his studies so that he can live a better life.

With his hard work and giving attitude, Shigeru Yamada represents the ideal American citizen. Although born in Japan, he is truly American in every other sense. I ask you to help right a wrong and grant Mr. Yamada lawful permanent resident status so that he can continue towards his bright future.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada.

I also ask unanimous consent that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California.

Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 20, and Cindy, age 18, also stand to benefit from this legislation. Their other three children, Roberto, age 15, Daniel, age 11, and Saray, age 9, are United States citizens. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola and their two eldest children face deportation.

The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

The Arreolas are in this uncertain situation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking his disbarment for the disservice he caused his immigration clients.

Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, had he known about it.

Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth so as to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Given the length of time that the Arreolas had, and have been, in the United States it is quite likely that they would have qualified for relief from deportation pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but for the conduct of their previous attorney.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their deportation would have on their children--three of whom are U.S. citizens--and the other two who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. For these children, this country is the only country they really know.

Nayely, the oldest, is a junior at Fresno Pacific University. She was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to attend college. She attends Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition scholarship package and works part-time in the admissions office. She is majoring in international business.

At her young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through the service she provides her community. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services, Cary Templeton, at Fresno Pacific University states in a letter of support, ``[t]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.''

In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID), a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely was also president of the Key Club, a community service organization. She helped mentor freshmen and participates in several other student organizations in her school. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family, if forced to return to Mexico, will be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and further contribute to her community and to this country.

It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility for her community and country. By all indication, this is the case as well for all of the members of her family.

The Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents of this country or United States citizens. Mrs. Arreola has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is also my understanding that they have no immediate family in Mexico.

According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family.

It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. I ask unanimous consent that eight letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jacqueline Coats, a 26-year old widow currently living in San Francisco.

Mrs. Coats came to the U.S. in 2001 from Kenya on a student visa to study Mass Communications at San Jose State University. Her visa status lapsed in 2003, and the Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against her.

Mrs. Coats married Marlin Coats on April 17, 2006, after dating for several years. The couple was happily married and planning to start a family when, on May 13, Mr. Coats tragically died in a heroic attempt to save two young boys from drowning.

The couple had been on a Mother's Day outing at Ocean Beach with some of Mr. Coats' nephews when they heard cries for help. Having worked as a lifeguard in the past, Mr. Coats instinctively dove into the water. The two children were saved with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr. Coats, caught in a riptide, died. Mrs. Coats received a medal honoring her husband.

Four days before Mr. Coats' death, the couple prepared and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office. Unfortunately the petition was not filed until after his death, rendering it invalid. Mrs. Coats currently has a hearing before an immigration judge in San Francisco on August 24, but her attorney has informed my staff that she has no relief available to her and will be ordered deported.

Mrs. Coats, devastated by the loss of her husband, is now caught in a battle for her right to stay in America. At a recent news conference with her lawyer, Thip Ark, she explained of her situation, ``I feel like I have nothing to live for. I have nothing to go home to . . . I've been here four years . . . It would be like starting a new life.''

Ms. Ark explains that Mrs. Coats is extremely close with her late husband's family, with whom she lives in San Leandro, CA. Mrs. Coats has said that her husband's large family has become her own. Ramona Burton of San Francisco, one of Marlin Coats' seven brothers and sisters explains, ``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her first American Thanksgiving . . . I can't imagine looking around and not seeing her there. She needs to be there.''

The San Francisco and Bay Area community is rallying strong support for Mrs. Coats. The San Francisco chapters of the NAACP, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Police Department, have all

passed resolutions in support of Mrs. Coats' right to remain in the country.

Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this young woman, and the Coats family, will face yet another disorienting and heartbreaking tragedy. Mrs. Coats will be deported to Kenya, a country she has not lived in since she was 21. In her time of grieving, she will be forced to leave her home, her job with AC Transit, her new family, and everything she has known for the past 5 years.

I cannot think of a compelling reason why the United States should not allow this young widow to continue the green card process. Had her husband lived, Mrs. Coats would have filed the papers without difficulty. It was because of her husband's selfless and heroic act that Mrs. Coats must now struggle to remain in the country. As one concerned California constituent wrote to me, ``If ever there was a case where common fairness, morality and decency should reign over legal technicalities, this is it. We, as a country, need to reward heroism and good.''

I believe that we can reward the late Mr. Coats for his noble actions by granting his wife citizenship. It is what he intended for her. It can even be argued that a green card for his wife was one of his dying wishes, as the papers were signed just 4 days prior to his death.

For these reasons, I offer this private relief immigration bill and ask my colleagues to support it on behalf of Mrs. Coats.

I also ask unanimous consent that two letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Robert Kuan Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei ``Alice'' Hsu-Liang, foreign nationals who live in San Bruno, CA.

I have decided to offer private relief immigration bills on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their three United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer.

The Liangs are foreign nationals facing deportation on account of their overstay of visitors visas and the failure of their previous attorney to timely file a suspension of deportation application before the immigration laws changed in 1996.

Mr. Liang is a foreign national and refugee from Laos. His wife is a citizen of Taiwan. They entered the United States 24 years ago as tourists and established residency in the San Bruno, CA. Because they overstayed the terms of their temporary visas, they now face deportation from the United States.

After living here for so many years, removal from the United States would not come easily or perhaps without tearing this family apart. The Liangs have three children born in this country: Wesley, 15 years old, Bruce, 12 years old, and Eva, 9 years old. Young Wesley suffers from asthma and has a history of social and emotional anxiety.

The immigration judge who presided over the Liang's case in 1997 concluded that there was no question that the Liang children would be adversely impacted if they were required to leave their relatives and friends behind in California to follow their parents to Taiwan, a country whose language and culture is unfamiliar to them.

I can only imagine how much more they would be adversely impacted now given the passage of 9 more years.

The Liangs have filed annual income tax returns; established a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant, in the United States; are homeowners, and are financially successful. Since they arrived in the United States, they have pursued and, to a degree, achieved the American Dream.

Mr. and Mrs. Liang's quest to legalize their immigration status began in 1993 when they filed for relief from deportation before an immigration judge.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, however, did not act on their application until nearly 5 years later, in 1997, after which time the immigration laws had significantly changed.

According to the immigration judge, had the INS acted on their application for relief from deportation in a timely manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, given that they were long-term residents of this country with U.S. citizen children and other positive factors. By the time INS processed their application, however, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which changed the requirements for relief from removal to the Liangs' disadvantage.

I supported the changes of the 1996 law, but I believe sometimes there are exceptions which merit special consideration. The Liangs are such a couple and family. Perhaps what distinguishes this family from many others is that through hard work and perseverance, Mr. Liang has achieved a significant degree of success in the United States while battling a severe form of post traumatic stress disorder.

According to his psychologist, this disorder stems from the persecution he, his family and community experienced in his native country of Laos during the Vietnam war.

Throughout his childhood and adolescence, Mr. Liang was exposed to numerous traumatic experiences, including the murder of his mother by the North Vietnamese and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He also routinely witnessed the brutal persecution and deaths of others in his village. In 1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan.

The emotional impact of Mr. Liang's experiences in his war-torn native country has been profound and continues to haunt him. His psychologist has also indicated that he suffers from severe clinical depression, which has been exacerbated by the prospect of being deported to Taiwan, where on account of his nationality, he believes he and his family would be treated as second-class citizens.

Moreover, Mr. Liang believes that the pursuit of further mental health treatment in Taiwan would only exacerbate the stigma of being an outsider in a country whose language he does not speak. Given those prospects, he also fears the impact such a stigma would have on the well-being and future of his children.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs.

I also ask unanimous consent that two letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Biofuels Investment Trust Fund Act'' because I believe it is legislation that can help America progress towards a more secure energy future; I believe it is a small piece to the puzzle that is our energy policy. The Biofuels Investment Trust Fund Act seeks to take a simple, common sense step down the path we in this country need to take to improve our energy security. The Act would direct that all money collected by the Federal Government pursuant to the tariff on imported ethanol be invested in the research, development and deployment of biofuels--especially biofuels like cellulosic ethanol that can be produced from biomass feedstocks.

There are some who advocate removing the ethanol tariff but I believe that it is currently unwise to do so. We are in the early stages of trying to build a renewable fuels industry that will eventually allow ethanol and other biofuels to be a real alternative to the fuels we currently derive from oil. The tariff is an important part of that because it helps the nascent ethanol industry and it ensures that we are not providing subsidies to ethanol produced in other nations.

It seems to me, however, that the money collected from this tariff can be put to better, more productive uses than merely deposited in the general fund. And, it would seem, that using these funds to help build our domestic ethanol production would be the wisest use of the money. Therefore, I propose that the tariff funds be collected in a specific trust fund and only be used for investment in biofuels research, development and deployment. Moreover, I propose that those funds be more specifically invested in the next generation of ethanol production--cellulosic ethanol produced from biomass feedstocks. These funds can be used in any of a number of ways to help offset the substantial costs inherent in starting an entire industry--like one for cellulosic ethanol--from scratch and in the face of volatile commodities and energy markets.

Our Nation faces a serious crisis brought on by our energy consumption and, most importantly, by our reliance on foreign sources of oil. As a Nebraskan, my focus has been on the role agriculture can play in the development of alternative sources of energy and I am convinced that American agriculture is positioned to supply the nation with an abundant source of clean, high-quality energy that will reduce our destructive reliance on foreign oil.

I also believe that biofuels production can be the catalyst for a new wave of American innovation as a part of the continuing search for better energy solutions. The virtue in producing cleaner, more sustainable fuels derived from our own fields rather than extracted from distant lands could help spur new technologies, new jobs and new growth in our national economy.

We in Nebraska know the value of ethanol. We know the benefits it holds for the environment and our farmers and we know that it is critical in lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

We also know that the ethanol industry creates jobs--nearly 1 in 4 jobs in Nebraska are agriculture related and new ethanol plants are opening across the State.

I believe that a national emphasis on biofuels production represents an important investment in the proud tradition of the American farmer, American ingenuity and American productivity. It's a win-win-win situation--a win for farmers, a win for agriculture and win for national security.

There is not an area of the country that does not have some agriculture product that can be used as an alternative energy source whether it's corn in Nebraska, forestry wastes in the Northeast and Northwest, or sugar cane in Hawaii, Louisiana and Florida; or whether it is biomass energy crops that can be grown throughout the country.

In conclusion, I am proud to introduce the Biofuels Investment Trust Fund Act with the hope that it will be part of the solution to our energy problems. The money we deposit in this Biofuels Trust Fund will help grow our biofuels industry and through that investment we will improve our national energy security, as well as boosting the economies in agriculture and our rural communities.

I request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I introduce the Veterans Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act of 2007. This measure would direct the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to increase, effective December 1, 2007, the rates of veterans' compensation to keep pace with the rising cost-of-living in this country. The rate adjustment is equal to that provided on an annual basis to Social Security recipients and is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index. Several of my colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including Ranking Member, Larry Craig, and Senators Rockefeller, Murray, Sanders, Brown, Webb, and Ensign join me in introducing this important legislation.

Congress regularly enacts an annual cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, for veterans' compensation in order to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of the veterans and their families who depend upon this income to meet their daily needs. This past year Congress passed, and the President signed into law, Public Law 109-361, which resulted in a COLA increase of 3.3 percent for 2007.

It is important that we view veterans compensation, including the annual COLA, and indeed all benefits earned by veterans, as a continuing cost of war. It is clear that the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to result in injuries and disabilities that will yield an increase in claims for compensation. Studies by VA indicate that the most significant predictor of new claims activity is the size of the active force. More than 1 million servicemembers have deployed in support of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. And, according to the Department of Defense, as of today there have been 24,216 reported casualties during these operations. This number, however, does not take into account conditions that develop over the course of a war, including musculoskeletal disorders. Therefore VA can expect a significant increase in the number of new claims for compensation as a result of these ongoing conflicts.

The COLA affects, among other benefits, veterans' disability compensation

and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children. Many of these more than 3 million recipients of those benefits depend upon these tax-free payments not only to provide for their own basic needs, but those of their spouses, children and parents as well. Without an annual COLA increase, these veterans and their families would see the value of their hard-earned benefits slowly diminish, and we, as a Congress, would be in dereliction of our duty to ensure that those who sacrificed so much for this country receive the benefits and services to which they are entitled.

Disbursement of disability compensation to our Nation's veterans constitutes one of the core missions of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is a necessary measure of gratitude afforded to those veterans whose lives were irrevocably altered by their service to this country.

I urge our colleagues to support passage of this COLA increase. I also ask our colleagues for their continued support for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. President, today, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I introduce the Veterans Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act of 2007. This measure would direct the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to increase, effective December 1, 2007, the rates of veterans' compensation to keep pace with the rising cost-of-living in this country. The rate adjustment is equal to that provided on an annual basis to Social Security recipients and is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index. Several of my colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including Ranking Member, Larry Craig, and Senators Rockefeller, Murray, Sanders, Brown, Webb, and Ensign join me in introducing this important legislation.

Congress regularly enacts an annual cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, for veterans' compensation in order to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of the veterans and their families who depend upon this income to meet their daily needs. This past year Congress passed, and the President signed into law, Public Law 109-361, which resulted in a COLA increase of 3.3 percent for 2007.

It is important that we view veterans compensation, including the annual COLA, and indeed all benefits earned by veterans, as a continuing cost of war. It is clear that the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to result in injuries and disabilities that will yield an increase in claims for compensation. Studies by VA indicate that the most significant predictor of new claims activity is the size of the active force. More than 1 million servicemembers have deployed in support of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. And, according to the Department of Defense, as of today there have been 24,216 reported casualties during these operations. This number, however, does not take into account conditions that develop over the course of a war, including musculoskeletal disorders. Therefore VA can expect a significant increase in the number of new claims for compensation as a result of these ongoing conflicts.

The COLA affects, among other benefits, veterans' disability compensation

and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children. Many of these more than 3 million recipients of those benefits depend upon these tax-free payments not only to provide for their own basic needs, but those of their spouses, children and parents as well. Without an annual COLA increase, these veterans and their families would see the value of their hard-earned benefits slowly diminish, and we, as a Congress, would be in dereliction of our duty to ensure that those who sacrificed so much for this country receive the benefits and services to which they are entitled.

Disbursement of disability compensation to our Nation's veterans constitutes one of the core missions of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is a necessary measure of gratitude afforded to those veterans whose lives were irrevocably altered by their service to this country.

I urge our colleagues to support passage of this COLA increase. I also ask our colleagues for their continued support for our Nation's veterans.