Pell Grant Equity Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin, to introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2007. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective State court interpreter programs, helping to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency.

States are already legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Unfortunately, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the

constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding State court interpreter programs.

Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters.

Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency--and therefore the demand for court interpreter services--continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 19 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2000, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 21 million, approaching twice what the number was ten years earlier. Illinois had more than 1 million. Texas had nearly 2.7 million. California had more than 6.2 million.

The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a committee established by the Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward,'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation, and because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed.

Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court. In recent testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy described a particularly alarming situation where bilingual jurors can understand what the witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding when an interpreter has not accurately represented the witness's testimony. Justice Kennedy agrees that the lack of qualified court interpreters poses a significant threat to our judicial system and emphasized the importance of addressing the issue.

This legislation does just that by authorizing $15 million per year, over five years, for a State Court Interpreter Grant Program. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for states that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home.

Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a perfect example of that. When Wisconsin's program got off the ground in 2004, using State money and a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, just two years later, it has 43 certified interpreters. Most of those are Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language and Russian. The list of provisional interpreters-- those who have received training and passed written tests--is much longer and includes individuals trained in Arabic, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in only two years, and with only $250,000 of federal assistance.

This legislation has the strong support of state court administrators and state supreme court justices around the country.

Our States are facing this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them have been unable to keep up with the demand. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier, so I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Reunification Act, a measure designed to remedy a regrettable injustice in our immigration laws. A minor oversight in the law has led to an unfortunate, and likely unintended, consequence. Parents of U.S. citizens are currently able to enter the country as legal permanent residents, but our laws do not permit their minor children to join them. Simply put, the Family Reunification Act will close this loophole by including the minor siblings of U.S. citizens in the legal definition of ``immediate relative.'' This legislation will ensure that our immigration laws can better accomplish one of the most important policy goals behind them--the goal of strengthening the family unit.

Congress took an important first step in promoting family reunification when it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act. By qualifying as ``immediate relatives,'' this law currently offers parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens the ability to obtain an immigrant visas to enter the country.

We can all agree that this is good immigration policy. Unfortunately, an oversight in this law has undermined the effectiveness of the important principle of family reunification. Each year, a number of families--in Wisconsin and across the country--are finding that they cannot take advantage of this family reunification provision.

Today, U.S. citizens often petition for their parents to be admitted to the United States as ``immediate relatives.'' As I have said, that is clearly allowed under current law. It is not always quite that simple, though. In a small number of cases, a problem arises when these U.S. citizens have minor siblings. Since they do not qualify as an ``immediate relative,'' the minor siblings are denied admission. So, a young man or woman can bring his parents into the country, but not his or her five year old brother or sister. Because the parents are unable to leave a young child behind, the child is not the only family member who does not come to the United States. The parents--forced to choose between their children--are effectively prevented from coming to this country as well. The result, then, is that we are unnecessarily keeping families apart by excluding minor siblings from the definition of immediate relative.

For example, one family in my home State of Wisconsin is truly a textbook example of what is wrong with this law. Effiong and Ekom Okon, both U.S. citizens by birth, requested that their parents, who were living in Nigeria, be admitted to as ``immediate relatives.'' The law clearly allows for this. Their father, Leo, had already joined them in Wisconsin, and their mother, Grace, was in possession of a visa, ready to join the rest of her family. However, Grace was unable to join her husband and sons in the United States because their six-year-old daughter, Daramfon, did not qualify as an ``immediate relative.'' Because it would be unthinkable for her to abandon her small child, Grace was forced to stay behind in Nigeria, separated from the rest of her family. That is not what this law was intended to accomplish.

It is difficult to determine the full extent of this problem. Because minor siblings do not qualify for visas, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not keep track of how many families have been adversely affected. What we do know, however, is that the cases in my home State are not unique. Though the number is admittedly not large, DHS has notified us that they run into this problem regularly, with the number reaching into the hundreds each year. So, this change will not lead to an influx of many immigrants, but it will reunite a number of families who have unnecessarily been kept apart.

If only one family suffers because of this loophole, I would suggest that changes should be made. The fact that there have been numerous cases, probably in the hundreds, demands that we address this issue now.

Many parts of our immigration laws are outdated and in need of repair. The definition of ``immediate relative'' is no different. Congress's intent when it granted ``immediate relatives'' the right to obtain immigrant visas was to promote family reunification, but the unfortunate oversight which Senator Kennedy and I have highlighted has interfered with many families' opportunity to do just that. The legislation introduced today would expand the definition of ``immediate relative'' to include the minor siblings of U.S. citizens. By doing so, we can truly provide our fellow citizens with the ability to reunite with their family members. This is a simple and modest solution to an unfortunate problem that too many families have already had to face. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act,'' which I am proud to introduce with Senator McCaskill.

Last week, the Nation learned of the serious problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center including decaying, cockroach-infested facilities and an overwhelmed patient-care bureaucracy. As described in a series of articles in the Washington Post by Dana Priest and Anne Hull, wounded soldiers are returning home from the battle in Iraq only to face a new battle to get the care and benefits they have earned.

These stories should not have come as a complete surprise to those who have followed the issue closely. We have long known that troops returning from battle face numerous bureaucratic hurdles when they get home. That's why I introduced legislation last year to smooth the transition from active duty to civilian life. The Lane Evans Bill expands and improves electronic medical records, face-to-face physical exams, better tracking of veterans, and other approaches to make life easier for returning veterans.

However, the stories out of Walter Reed last week did shock my conscience because, like many Senators, I have made the half-hour trek from the Capitol to visit Walter Reed. And I saw what the Army wanted the world to see: a shining world-class facility where the wounded can heal with state-of-the-art care. I never saw mold growing on the walls, or broken elevators, or the lack of adequate support for soldiers and their families. Walter Reed was supposed to be the flagship of military health care. Instead it has become an emblem of much that is wrong with the system, and a harbinger of more severe problems that may be hiding at other military hospitals and facilities that are not in the spotlight.

The problems at Walter Reed stem from complex causes, the most important of which is that the military and VA have not yet prepared for the growing flood of casualties from the Iraq war. Our injured troops did not hesitate to fight for us on the battlefield--we shouldn't make them fight again at home in order to receive the care they deserve. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are introducing the bipartisan Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act today. The bill will fix the problems at Walter Reed and improve care at our military hospitals and facilities.

Our bill would fix deplorable conditions at outpatient residence facilities by setting high standards and increasing accountability. Under this bipartisan measure, the standards will be clear. First, recovering soldiers' rooms will be as good or better as the best standard rooms for active-duty troops. Second, our injured heroes will not have to wait more than two weeks for maintenance problems to be repaired. Third, we will have zero tolerance for pest infestations. And finally, emergency medical personnel and crisis counselors will be available to recovering troops 24 hours a day.

The bill also tackles accountability problems. In the days following the Post stories, the Army vice chief of staff, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs both said they were surprised by conditions at Walter Reed and directed blame on lower-ranking officers and noncommissioned officers. I also read in the Army Times that soldiers at Walter Reed have been warned not to talk to the media. Under our bill, we won't have to rely on the media to inform the Congress and the American people of the conditions at military hospitals. It requires that the Inspector General inspect facilities twice a year and report conditions to high-level officials and the public. Under our bill, military leaders will no longer be able to use the excuse that they didn't know conditions on the ground.

When injured servicemembers return home, they along with their family members face a mountain of paperwork and bureaucracy. From the moment a doctor determines a soldier may be unable to return to duty, it takes an average of 209 days for the military to figure out what to do with the soldier. The system is broken, and soldiers and their families are the ones who pay the price. Our bill addresses this problem by bringing the far flung parts of the military's Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) under one roof in each branch of the military. It also puts much of the system online so that caseworkers and servicemembers can manage their documents electronically. Today, students can apply to go to law school or business school online, without ever having to touch a piece of paper. Navigating the Pentagon bureaucracy should be that easy.

Our bill also calls for injury-specific procedures so that the most severely injured servicemembers can skip unnecessary steps. There's no reason why a soldier with a gunshot injury to the spine should face the same procedural hurdles in order to prove his injury was service- related as a soldier with less severe injuries. At the same time, nothing in our bill will prevent those servicemembers who wish to stay in the military from appealing decisions. Our bill also helps soldiers and their families navigate the PDES system with new hotlines, manuals, and an ombudsman to help answer questions.

Another problem at Walter Reed is casework. The caseworkers are doing amazing work helping soldiers schedule medical appointments, prepare paperwork, and obtain their everyday needs. However, the caseworkers are overwhelmed. Some have to care for 50 or more recovering soldiers at a time, more than double the ideal ratio. The Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act fixes this problem by forcing the Pentagon to work with each military hospital to set the ideal ratio of caseworkers to patients based on the particular needs of that facility. In the interim, our bill requires a temporary ratio of 1 caseworker for every 20 recovering servicemembers. This will push the Pentagon to begin hiring and training caseworkers right away.

This legislation also provides important new support for family members who often have to endure economic and emotional hardship to accompany their loved one through the recovery process and the currently flawed PDES process. It clarifies that non-medical attendees and family members on invitational orders may receive medical care and mental health counseling while caring for injured loved ones at military facilities. It extends employment and job placement training services to family members. And most important, this bipartisan legislation provides federal protections against a family member on invitational orders being fired. I think we can all agree that a mother should never have to choose between caring for a wounded son or daughter and keeping her job.

Secretary Gates promised a thorough investigation by outside experts and accountability for those responsible. Our bill builds on that model by establishing an Oversight Board of outside experts to review the Pentagon's progress in implementing this bill. The Board would be appointed by Congress and the executive branch and be made up of veterans, wounded soldiers, family members and experts on military medicine. The Oversight Board will be an important check to make sure the Defense Department is following through to care for recovering troops.

We cannot move fast enough to make sure our wounded troops are getting the care they need. No cost is too great. We must pass the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act quickly and follow up with the adequate resources to ensure the men and women recovering at military hospitals across the world get the best care we can offer.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, 16 bipartisan

cosponsors, to introduce the S. 700. Approximately 1 year ago, Senator Lincoln and I introduced the Collaboration for the Recovery of the Endangered Species Act, or CRESA, an earlier bill to amend the Endangered Species Act or ESA. S. 700 is an updated version of the Endangered Species Recovery Act or ESRA, which we introduced on December 6, 2006. Like ESRA, S. 700 does not amend the current ESA, but builds on ideas set forth in the original CRESA. It creates policies that finance the recovery of endangered species by private landowners. S. 700 makes it simpler for landowners to get involved in conservation and reduces the conflict that often emanates from the ESA. It will be an important codification of much-needed incentives to help recover endangered species. And, since the introduction of CRESA 1 year ago, I'm proud to count over 100 different species and landowner organizations and advocates that have partnered with us in support of this important tax legislation.

Over 80 percent of endangered species live on private property. Under the current law, however, there are too few incentives and too many obstacles for private landowners to participate in conservation agreements to help recover species. S. 700, like the voluntary farm bill conservation programs that inspired its creation, will make it more attractive for private landowners to contribute to the recovery of species under the ESA.

This bill resulted from effective and inclusive collaboration among key stakeholders most affected by the implementation of the ESA. Landowner interests include farmers, ranchers, and those from the natural resource-using communities. For example, some current supporters of S. 700 who contributed invaluable advice are the American Farm Bureau and the Society of American Foresters. This could not rightly be called a collaborative project without the vital and necessary input received from the Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense and the National Wildlife Federation--key environmental groups that made significant contributions. They understand that landowner must be treated as allies to ensure success in the long-run for the conservation of habitat and species. Finally, while the genesis of this bill has many roots, a passionate catalyst was James Cummins of Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation, whose great concern for the outdoors provided inspiration to move these ideas forward.

These experts worked together to craft S. 700, which provides new tax incentives for private landowners who voluntarily contribute to the recovery of endangered species. The tax credits will reimburse landowners for property rights affected by agreements that include conservation easements and costs incurred by species management plans.

For landowners who limit their property rights through conservation easements, there will be 100 percent compensation of all costs. That percentage declines to 75 percent for 30-year easements and 50 percent for cost-share agreements.

It is worth noting that this is the same formula that works successfully for farm bill programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program. Private property owners are appropriately rewarded for crucial ecological services that they provide on their property. The public benefits from these services, which ensure biodiversity. While the primary returns from this investment are protection and recovery of endangered species, the public will also undoubtedly gain additional benefits such as aesthetically pleasing open space, a reduction in the number of invasive species and enhanced water quality.

The legislation provides a list of options that give landowners a choice--a crucial element for the success of this proposal. For some landowners, a conservation easement will be the most attractive option. Easements are flexible tools that can be tailored to each landowner and species' interests. An easement restricts certain activities, but it still works well with traditional rural activities such as ranching and farming. For agreements without easements, there is flexibility to do what is necessary for the concerned species without the need to sacrifice property rights into perpetuity.

The tax credits provide essential funding that is necessary to respect private property rights. Wildlife should be an asset rather than a liability, which is how it has sometimes been viewed under the ESA. With wildlife becoming valuable to a landowner, those who may have been reluctant to participate in recovery efforts in the past will be more likely to contribute with these new incentives. When people want to take part in the process and do not fear it, the likelihood of conflict and litigation is reduced. For years, this type of conflict has proven costly not only financially to individuals and the government, but also in terms of relationships between people who share the land and natural resources. With a new trust and new model for finding conservation solutions, we can improve and expand our conservation work.

Provisions have been made to accommodate landowners whose taxes may be less than the tax credit provides. Partnerships in the agreements will allow any party to an agreement to receive a credit as long as they pay or incur costs as a result of the agreement. This language will allow creative collaboration among governments, landowners, taxpayers and environmentalists, further increasing the number of people involved in finding new solutions for conservation.

Furthermore, this bill also expands tax deductions for any landowner who takes part in the recovery plans approved under the ESA, and allows landowners to exclude from taxable income certain Federal payments under conservation cost-share programs. This will allow both individuals and businesses to deduct the cost of recovery work without bureaucratic obstacles.

This bill not only sets forth the financing for private landowners, but it also makes it easier to implement the agreements. Landowners will receive technical assistance to implement the agreements. Also, to remove some legal disincentives to recover species, liability protection may be provided to protect the landowners from penalties under the ESA. This removes the fear of trying to help endangered species. Currently, more species usually just means more liability for a landowner.

As a result of these incentives, I expect to see a phenomenal increase in the number of success stories. These stories will sound familiar to those creative collaborators working on the ground now where we have learned that the types of tools provided in this bill can work if offered consistently.

The Endangered Species Recovery Act is very exciting to those of us who value protecting our natural resources. It provides collaborative, creative ways to balance conservation with economic uses of our natural resources. It also preserves rural ways of life. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and House to move ahead with this legislation which will provide a new model for conservation to do better work. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and House to move ahead with this legislation.

I am deeply grateful to my colleagues from Arkansas, Iowa and Montana for their essential expertise and support to create S. 700. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet Protection Act of 2007. In 1966, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act to prevent the abuse and mistreatment of animals and to provide assurance that family pets would not be sold for laboratory experiments. Although the Animal Welfare Act provides a solid foundation to stop the mistreatment of animals, more needs to be done to protect pets and pet owners from the actions of Class B animal dealers, also known as ``random source'' dealers.

Across the Nation, random source animal dealers acquire tens of thousands of dogs and cats, many of them family pets, through deceit and fraud. Some of their tactics include tricking animals owners into giving away their dogs and cats by posing as someone interested in pet adoption and the outright theft of family pets left unattended. The treatment of the animals captured and sold by random source dealers is often shocking and cruel. Hundreds of animals are kept in squalid conditions with just enough food and water to keep them alive until sold.

This bill does not address the larger issue of whether animals should or should not be used in research facilities. Medical research is one of our primary weapons in the discovery of new drugs and surgical techniques that help develop cures for life-threatening diseases and animal research has been, and continues to be, a fundamental part of scientific advances. Instead, this legislation targets the unethical practice of selling stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities. While I do not believe that research laboratories intentionally seek out fraudulently obtained animals, it does happen. And it does need to be stopped.

My bill will strengthen the Animal Welfare Act by prohibiting the use of random source animal dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories by making funds unavailable to research facilities that purchase animals from a dealer that holds a Class B license under the Animal Welfare Act. In doing so, it also simultaneously encourages the use of legitimate sources such as USDA- licensed Class A dealers. I urge my colleagues to join me in my efforts to curb the abusive practices of random source dealers by supporting this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from New Hampshire, Vermont, and Montana, Senators Sununu, Leahy and Tester, to reintroduce legislation to address problems with the REAL ID Act of 2005.

Last year, Senator Sununu and I introduced S. 4117, the Identity Security Enhancement Act, which would repeal the REAL ID Act and reinstitute the shared rulemaking process and more reasonable guidelines established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. We joined together to convey our concerns with REAL ID to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and to urge the Department to ensure that the forthcoming regulations implementing REAL ID addressed our concerns. Now, on the eve of DHS releasing the proposed REAL ID regulations, we once again introduce our legislation as a placeholder as Congress and the American people review how DHS proposes to implement this costly and controversial law.

I plan to hold a hearing on the REAL ID regulations in the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee shortly, and I will develop comprehensive legislation to address any privacy and civil liberties issues arising under the Act and any unrealistic burdens placed on the states.

From the time the REAL ID Act became law nearly two years ago, hundreds of organizations--ranging from the National Governor's Association (NGA) to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)--have voice their strong opposition to REAL ID. None of these groups were heard by Congress before the bill was passed in May 2005 as there were no hearings to understand the repercussions of such sweeping legislation.

Rather, the REAL ID Act was attached to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act (P.L. 109-13) in Conference. It was wrong to include the legislation that has such a massive impact on State and local governments without their input. Not having a full debate on the measure to determine its impact has led an increasing number of State legislatures to introduce and pass legislation to condemn REAL ID and, in some cases, prohibit the state from spending money to implement the Act.

My two primary concerns with REAL ID are that the law places an unrealistic and unfunded burden on state governments and erodes Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights.

There is nothing realistic about REAL ID. The extremely costly and complex set of electronic systems that will be required to connect the thousands of local Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) to one another and to a host of Federal agencies as required under REAL ID may not be practical. This would cost $1.42 billion according to a September 2006 report issued by the NGA, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). In addition, the costs to re-issue every current driver's license under the new screening process is estimated to cost approximately $8 billion over five years. Combined with the other requirements imposed on states by REAL ID, such as new design requirements for the ID cards and on-site security, REAL ID will cost over $11 billion. Congress has appropriated only $40 million for REAL ID implementation, which leaves a hefty price tag for the states, especially for legislation that was passed with no review.

In addition to the unrealistic burden REAL ID places on states, REAL ID is a serious threat to our privacy rights and civil liberties.

As I said last year, the REAL ID Act will require every driver's licensing agency to collect and store substantial numbers of records containing licensees' most sensitive personally identifiable information, including one's social security number, proof of residence, and biometric identifiers such as a digital photograph and signature. If the state databases are compromised, they will provide one-stop access to virtually all information necessary to commit identity theft.

Moreover, the sharing of the aggregated personally identifiable information of licensees between and amongst various government agencies and employees at the federal, state, and local level, as contemplated by the REAL ID Act, potentially allows millions of individuals access to that information without protections or safeguards.

Despite these obvious threats to Americans' privacy, the REAL ID Act fails to mandate privacy protections for individuals' information nor does it provide states with the means to implement data security and anti-hacking protections that will be required to safeguard the new databases mandated by the Act.

REAL ID exacerbates the threat of identity theft which threatens our security by giving us a false sense of security.

Unfunded mandates and the lack of privacy and security requirements are real problems that deserve real consideration and real solutions. Congress

has a responsibility to ensure that driver's licenses and ID cards issued in the United States are secure--both from would-be terrorists and identity thieves--affordable, and practical.

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

Mr. President, it is my honor to join my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, today in introducing the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, a bill that serves to better the experience so many recovering military servicemembers and their families have in dealing with the military healthcare system and its bureaucracy.

It is not often that you read something in the paper that makes you sick, but this is precisely the feeling I had just over a week ago as I read a Washington Post article that spoke of awful living conditions and an interminable bureaucracy being experienced by our war wounded who are receiving outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

I will not stand aside as those who have fought for our country come home to fight new battles against a crippling bureaucracy just to get the compensation they have more than earned. They shouldn't have to live in substandard conditions while they are recovering from their injuries.

Our legislation directly tackles these problems. The principle is simple: our wounded and recovering servicemembers must receive the best treatment. They can't live in substandard housing as they recover. And they must have a user-friendly system to help them apply for the appropriate disability and benefits compensation. It's the least we can do for all they have done for us.

For example, each military department has a standard for their dormitories and barracks. I know that not every dormitory or barracks meets the highest standard that the service sets, but that each service is steadily working to reach this standard across their facilities. It is my belief, and this bill serves to establish, that the lowest standard acceptable for a returning wounded servicemember should be the highest existing standard in each military service. Facing the daunting challenge of recovering from war wounds--both psychological and physical--our returning servicemembers should not be living among vermin and mold. They should not be placed in temporary, cramped, makeshift, ancient or transient quarters. We're not demanding the Taj Mahal. We are demanding decent living conditions to help these injured men and women.

Further, when problems exist in the living quarters of our recovering servicemembers, they should be identified and repaired quickly. This bill establishes strict measures to facilitate reporting of unsatisfactory living conditions and to mandate timely repair. It also establishes measures to ensure that independent parties are inspecting living quarters in order to prevent any syndrome whereby those closely engaged in dealing with these facilities are overly focused on completing the mission with what they have as opposed to what they should have.

I was also appalled to learn of the extensive, confusing bureaucracy that greeted our recovering servicemembers in the outpatient care process. With numerous commands, organizations, advocates, doctors, commanders and any number of others involved in the process, recovering servicemembers found themselves navigating a complicated process and often without a map. They also have to fill out numerous forms, request records, check off bureaucratic blocks, get the right language in their doctor's evaluations, document their illnesses, capture the symptoms they are experiencing and more. It is safe to say that the process poses a daunting challenge to even a fully healthy individual--but imagine the challenge for someone far from home and facing the realities of the wounds of war.

Complicating the challenges, those tasked to provide these servicemembers and their families with assistance have been faced with large caseloads and insufficient resources. This legislation requires responsible caseloads for military leaders and caseworkers--and it requires that those providing this assistance not just have

a caseload that guarantees a recovering servicemember the attention they need and deserve, but that these caseworkers are well trained.

I also learned that those who come to military treatment facilities like Walter Reed to help their loved ones often face uphill battles. I am proud that this legislation reaches out to protect those loved ones who risk their livelihood to care for our recovering servicemembers by providing them medical care as well as protections to secure the jobs they leave behind.

Today, I visited Walter Reed, talked with our recovering servicemembers, toured the facilities and discussed these issues with Walter Reed's leaders. I can confidently say that those treating our servicemembers are with me--they want the very best for our recovering servicemembers and for their families. I know that the quality of care being provided at Walter Reed and at many other military hospitals is exceptional and I applaud the caregivers.

But I also know that we have all failed to provide the best service and support to many during the outpatient care process. Their living quarters were not the best. The Physical Disability Evaluation System they experience is too bureaucratic. It is time to deliver the best. This legislation seeks to provide it.

This is fair legislation. It balances requiring immediate changes with letting the Department of Defense study what is necessary and to subsequently implement incremental change. It empowers our physicians by not requiring random timelines for medical processing or medical care, but it requires that care and processing happen with manageable, understandable and streamlined procedures that equally empowers the servicemember. And this bill requires that trained, professional and caring providers be available to recovering servicemembers and their families in sufficient numbers and in the appropriate places throughout the care process.

In closing, I want to thank Senator Obama for his efforts in teaming with me to produce this important legislation. But mostly I want to thank all those serving our nation in uniform today. Their sense of duty is remarkable. Their sacrifice is great. Their heroism unmatched. They have given their best to our country and our country is committed to giving them the best in return.