Floor Statements

Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support the Energy bill that we are voting on tonight. I will vote against cloture on the bill and against final passage. There are many good provisions of this bill--particularly in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable fuels--but at its core, the bill contains CAFE provisions that will needlessly harm the American auto industry.

I believe we had a real opportunity to make significant strides in improving fuel economy and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and doing it in a sensible way that would support American manufacturing and American workers. Instead, the bill before the Senate tonight has chosen the path that is most likely to harm our workers by combining trucks with cars for new standards that are overly aggressive and unachievable and may have a particularly harmful effect on those manufacturers who produce a high percentage of light trucks and produce small cars in America.

America has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, over 200,000 jobs in the automotive sector. Our companies face enormous competition in the global marketplace without support from the U.S. Government. Our companies are not competing against companies overseas they are competing against other governments that strongly support their manufacturing sectors with currency manipulation and trade barriers against our products. American companies must compete against those who are protected from import competition by their government, have cheap labor costs, do not pay health insurance and legacy costs, or do not have to meet our strict environmental standards. Our manufacturers can compete with anyone on a level playing field but right now that field is tilted against them.

Tonight, we are choosing to follow a path that will continue that uneven playing field for our manufacturers through our own regulatory process--no other countries would do that to its companies. The proponents of these provisions--a combined car-truck standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 claim that these standards will be easy to meet with new advanced technology and suggest that these fuel economy numbers are supported by the National Academy of Sciences. But that is simply not true. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences, in its 2002 report that is frequently cited, specifically stated that the conclusions it drew about technologies should not be interpreted as fuel economy recommendations.

There was a better way. An amendment sponsored by Senator Pryor that I cosponsored, along with Senators Bond, Voinovich, Stabenow and McCaskill, offered that alternative approach. Our amendment would have taken bold steps forward to improve fuel economy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and protect the environment. We did that in our amendment by establishing aggressive, yet achievable, new and different fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks and by setting clear interim milestones for reaching these new standards.

Our amendment would have required a thirty-percent increase in fuel economy standards for cars by 2022 and a thirty-five-percent increase in standards for trucks by 2025, and our amendment would have provided certainty that these standards will be met. It also would have provided the predictability needed by our auto companies to plan ahead and utilize new advanced technology to the maximum extent possible. Our amendment would have provided the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA--the agency that would set these standards--tools necessary to establish the standards in a sensible way that would have ensured the standards would be at the maximum feasible level, even if that level proved to be higher than the number included in this amendment. To ensure that the technology would be available to meet these standards, our amendment also would have provided a significant new infusion of Federal dollars to support advanced technology research, development, and demonstration programs across a wide spectrum of technologies--from advanced batteries and lightweight materials to advanced clean diesel, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fuel cells. Our amendment also would have put more advanced technology out on the road immediately by requiring each auto manufacturer to make a certain percentage of their new vehicles either flexible fuel vehicles or advanced technology vehicles--increasing to 50 percent of their fleets by 2015.

To be sure, meeting the new fuel economy standards under our amendment would have been a stretch and a challenge for all of our country's auto manufacturers--both our traditional American manufacturers, who built the foundation of the auto industry in this country, as well as manufacturers such as Toyota, Mazda, and Mitsubishi. But it would not have pushed our companies to the breaking point, as I fear the provisions of this legislation will do.

So I cannot support this bill tonight, and I regret that we did not take a different path. I was encouraged that the Commerce Committee leaders were

willing to take some of our suggestions and make some improvements in their bill. Through our negotiations, we received a few significant concessions. Specifically, the standards in the final bill are for the industry as a whole and not standards to be met company by company, ending a procedure which has discriminated against the domestic industry. The bill also makes clear that NHTSA is required to set standards according to an attribute based system that will look at the different attributes of cars and trucks, and make clear that the fuel economy standards after 2020 will be set at the maximum feasible level rather than requiring an arbitrary and unrealistic increase of four percent annually and was true with the Commerce Committee bill.

I believe that we can reduce our dependence on oil, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and improve the overall fuel economy of our vehicles on the road while supporting our American manufacturers in the global market place. To do that, we need a major public-private partnership and major investments in leap-ahead energy technologies, including advanced technology vehicles. We need a huge infusion of resources and a commitment from both the private sector and the Federal government to support efforts to reach these important goals. At a minimum, we cannot have our government act in ways that will unfairly disadvantage our American manufacturers against their global competitors.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Employee Free Choice Act sponsored by Senator Kennedy. Unions helped build our country. They have led the fight for critical worker safety and worker rights protections that all Americans now enjoy. They help raise wages for low- and middle-wage workers and can help close the gap from rising income inequalities.

Being a part of a union pays off for workers. For example, union cashiers earn 46 percent more than nonunion cashiers. Union food preparation workers earn 50 percent more than nonunion food preparation workers. And union maids and housekeepers earn 31 percent more than nonunion maids and housekeepers. Overall, median weekly earnings for union workers are $191 higher than those of nonunion workers, and this difference is even more significant for minority groups.

Union workers are also almost twice as likely to receive employer- sponsored health benefits and more than four times more likely to have a secure, defined-benefit pension plan than nonunion workers.

The rate of unionization in America is declining and with it workers' income. In 1973, 42.4 percent of workers in Michigan were in unions. By 2006, that number had fallen to just 19.7 percent of workers. As union membership declines, so has Michigan's real median household income, which fell 14.9 percent between 1999 and 2005.

The problem is not a lack of interest from workers. Fifty-three percent of U.S. workers state they would join a union if they could and 62 percent believe they would be worse off if unions did not exist.

The problem is the difficulties that are presented to those who seek to unionize a shop or industry. The current system does not adequately protect the workers that unionization campaigns are supposed to help and support. Workers are fired in 25 percent of private-sector union organizing campaigns. Seventy-eight percent of employers require that supervisors deliver antiunion messages to their employees. One-third of workers who unionize their workplace never even get a contract.

We have a duty to make sure that workers who want to join unions and unionize their workplace can do so, and that's what the Employee Free Choice Act will do.

The most significant provision in the bill allows for a union shop to be created through a process called a majority sign-up. Majority sign- up has been used for at least the past 70 years. In 2004, for example, about five times as many workers joined the AFL-CIO through a majority sign-up than those who were able to unionize through the National Labor Relations Board process. A majority sign up process results in less employer pressure and fewer delays than NLRB elections.

Currently, however, employers do not have to recognize employees that have a majority sign-up as a union, although many responsible companies, including Cingular and Kaiser Permanente, do. This bill would change that--if a majority of workers signs authorizations designating a union as their bargaining representative, then that union would be recognized as such.

Opponents of this bill have spread a great deal of misinformation about this provision. Many people believe the bill would take away an employee's right to a ``secret ballot'' union election. That is not true. This bill would still allow individuals the right to an NLRB

supervised election if at least 30 percent of employees want it. This bill also allows employees to form unions using another method as well.

The Employee Free Choice Act would also establish penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate employees and would provide for mediation and binding arbitration when the employer and workers cannot agree on a first contract. In short, it makes needed updates to our labor laws to better protect workers.

By allowing employees to form unions through a majority sign-up, we are supporting a worker's freedom to form a union and to bargain for better pay and better benefits. Experience has shown that this will be a good deal for the worker and a boost for America.

Mr. President, I am pleased to take this opportunity to commemorate the 40th anniversary of B. Benedict Glazer Elementary School and to congratulate the principal of Glazer Elementary, Florene McMurtry, on her retirement after 20 years of dedicated service and leadership. B. Benedict Glazer Elementary School celebrates this milestone today as a part of its annual 5th Grade Class Day.

On May 5, 1967, the Michigan House of Representatives passed Resolution No. 99 in honor of Dr. B. Benedict Glazer, Rabbi of Temple Beth El in Detroit, to formally recognize his 11 years of outstanding service to the congregation of Temple Beth El and to the State of Michigan. The resolution also paid tribute to the decision to name an elementary school in his honor. Dr. Glazer was nationally recognized as an exceptional scholar, teacher, and leader, and was well known as an advocate for uniting people of different faiths. Dr. Glazer was also at the forefront of many struggles for basic human rights, fighting for improved conditions in Michigan's mental health facilities and against various forms of racial and religious discrimination, among other noble causes.

I am proud to also recognize the many accomplishments of Glazer elementary students, which is undoubtedly the direct result of the hard work and dedication of its students, faculty and staff. Glazer was recently selected as a Leadership School by the Schools of the 21st Century and enjoys the distinction of being awarded the $100,000 Skillman Improvement Grant, the highest award among six elementary schools included in the 2007 high performing category out of 300 Detroit elementary schools. This grant is expected to help fund several worthwhile initiatives, including a GED certificate program and the purchase of additional computers to assist parents of Glazer students who have not completed high school.

The principal of B. Benedict Glazer Elementary School, Florene McMurtry, has served the Detroit Public School system in various positions for 35 years. Her passion for education is illustrated by the many notable successes she has enjoyed throughout her career as an educator. An example of her innovative approach to education was the partnership she helped form between Glazer Elementary School and Temple Beth El in 1998 to provide financial resources and tutors for students through the Glazer Elementary Ada S. and Rabbi B. Benedict Glazer Memorial Fund. Mrs. McMurtry also established the tradition of presenting dictionaries as the Glazer Memorial Prize to honor the most outstanding boy and girl student for Class Day. In 2001, Mrs. McMurtry established the InsideOut Literary Arts Project at Glazer with a writer-in-residence who integrates creative writing and drama in the school curriculum and publishes the students' work. To date, seven poetry books have been written and published.

Mrs. McMurtry has proven herself to be a devoted educator. Through her dedicated leadership and the many programs she has initiated and led, she has managed to increase parental involvement in school, student access to resources, and has served as a liaison between the students and the community. In addition, Mrs. McMurtry has received many accolades over the years in recognition of her outstanding service, including the Principal of the Year Art Award in 1996 and 2001, the Distinguished Service Award, City of Detroit in 1985 and she was a finalist for Michigan Teacher of the Year in 1984-1985.

I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in recognizing B. Benedict Glazer Elementary School on its 40th anniversary and its principal, Florene McMurtry, on her impressive record of service to the Detroit Public School system.

Mr. President, today we celebrate Juneteenth Independence Day in observance of the date upon which slavery finally came to an end in the United States, June 19, 1865. It was on this date that slaves in the Southwest finally learned of the end of slavery. Although passage of the 13th amendment in January 1865 legally abolished slavery, many African Americans remained in servitude due to the slow dissemination of this news across

the country. Since that time, 143 years ago, the descendants of slaves have observed this anniversary of emancipation as a remembrance of one of the most tragic periods of our Nation's history. The suffering, degradation, and brutality of slavery cannot be repaired, but the memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil.

Throughout the Nation, we also celebrate the many important achievements of former slaves and their descendants. We do so because in 1926 Dr. Carter G. Woodson, son of former slaves, proposed such a recognition as a way of preserving the history of African Americans and recognizing the enormous contributions of a people of great strength, dignity, faith, and conviction--a people who rendered their achievements for the betterment and advancement of a Nation once lacking in humanity towards them. Every February, nationwide, we celebrate African American History Month. And, every year on June 19 we celebrate Juneteenth Independence Day.

I am happy to join with my colleagues, Senators Durbin, Reid, Obama, Stabenow, Brownback, Kerry, Landrieu, Cardin, Lieberman, McCaskill, Clinton, Leahy, Kennedy, Dodd, Sanders, Menendez, Brown, Pryor, and Lautenberg, in commemorating Juneteenth Independence Day with the submission of S. Res. 231, which the Senate has just adopted, in recognition of the end of slavery and to never forget even the worst aspects of our Nation's history.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold 2 days of hearings entitled ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas Markets.'' The subcommittee's hearing will examine the reasons for the extreme price levels and volatility in the natural gas futures markets in 2006 and how excessive speculation by a single hedge fund, Amaranth LLC, dominated the natural gas market and distorted natural gas futures prices. The hearing also will examine the extent to which excessive speculative trading on unregulated energy exchanges contributed to the price distortions, and the need for statutory and regulatory changes to prevent manipulation and excessive speculation on unregulated exchanges from detrimentally affecting energy prices. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include a Counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations who will present a report on the subcommittee's year- long investigation, Amaranth, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Intercontinental Exchange, the New York Mercantile Exchange, natural gas users, and academics. A final witness list for the June 25 hearing will be available on Friday, June 22, 2007. A final witness list for the July 9 hearing will be available on Friday, July 6, 2007.

The subcommittee hearings are scheduled for Monday, June 25, 2007, at 11 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, and Monday, July 9, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 224-9505.

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I pay tribute to Congregation Beth El on its 120th anniversary. The congregation will celebrate this milestone with a weekend of events titled ``May Ohr L'Ohr: From Light to Light'' on June 22 through June 24, 2007. This celebration will highlight the congregation's rich history and recognize its special place in the Grand Traverse community.

Congregation Beth El was formed in the late 1800s by Jewish immigrants arriving from Poland and Russia. In 1885, the cornerstone was laid for the Beth El synagogue, a simple two-story gable-and- clapboard structure. Today, the building is the oldest synagogue in continuous use in Michigan and is featured on the State Register of Historic Sites. The synagogue, originally built to hold an Orthodox congregation, has evolved over the years to serve all members of the Jewish community, as well as to welcome those of other faiths.

The vitality of Congregation Beth El can be attributed to the hard work, dedication, and vision of the congregation. The congregation, led in large measure by the executive committee, has sought to make the synagogue the center of the Jewish community's religious and social life. One such example is the summer rabbi program. The program enables young rabbis to travel to Traverse City to share their enthusiasm for and commitment to Judaism with members of the congregation and community. This program has been greatly successful and eventually led to a year-round rabbi presence for Congregation Beth El.

On the celebration of the 120th anniversary of Congregation Beth El, I would like to extend my best wishes to all members of the congregation. I also commend the leadership of Congregation Beth El on maintaining a synagogue that has provided a place for those seeking answers in Judaism and a center of Jewish activities in northern Michigan. Once again, congratulations on 120 years of service and growth in the Grand Traverse area.

Mr. President, it is critically important that each time a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine is lost in battle, their families, friends, and communities are shown the respect and support of a grateful nation. Tragically, Michigan has lost more than 135 heroes in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the most powerful ways we honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country is to fly the flag they fought under at half-staff.

On many occasions during the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Governors around the country have issued proclamations for State agencies and residents to lower our Nation's flag to honor fallen servicemembers from their States. Many Federal agencies in those States comply with such proclamations, but some have not. To those mourning the death of a loved one, this inaction can be hurtful and interpreted as indifference to their loss. I know my colleagues will agree that this is certainly not the message our Government wants to send to the families of our men and women in uniform.

This legislation would prevent this situation by giving Governors the explicit authority to order our Nation's flag lowered to half-staff when a member of the Armed Forces from their State dies while serving on active duty. It would also require federal agencies in that State to lower their flags consistent with a Governor's proclamation. The House of Representatives passed identical legislation on May 15. I am pleased that my colleagues support this legislation so that all levels of our Government will send a clear and consistent message when members of our military are killed in the course of their service to our country.

One of my greatest honors as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is to spend time with our troops, and they are as courageous, honorable, and capable a fighting force as the world has ever known. These men and women have made a commitment to protect our Nation. We need to make an equally strong commitment to honor them when they make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. We owe our fallen soldiers, their families, and their communities a unified showing of respect.

Mr. President in February, a series of articles in the Washington Post highlighted shortfalls in the care and treatment of our wounded warriors at the Walter Reed Army Hospital. These articles described deplorable living conditions for some service members in an outpatient status; a bungled, bureaucratic process for assigning disability ratings that determine whether a service member will be medically retired with health and other benefits for himself and for his family; and a clumsy handoff between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs as the military member transitions from one department to the other. The Nation's shock and dismay reflected the American people's support, respect, and gratitude for the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform. They deserve the best, not shoddy medical care and bureaucratic snafus.

The Armed Services Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee held a rare joint hearing to identify the problems our wounded soldiers are facing. These committees continue to work together to address these issues, culminating in the bill we introduce today, the Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act. Our bill addresses the issues of substandard facilities, inconsistent disability ratings, lack of seamless transition from DOD to the VA, inadequacy of severance pay, care and treatment for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, medical care for caregivers not eligible for TRICARE, and the sharing of medical records between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act requires the Secretary of Defense to establish standards for the treatment of and housing for military outpatients. These standards will require compliance with Federal and other standards for hospital facilities and operations and will be uniform and consistent throughout the Department of Defense.

Another shortfall identified in the aftermath of the Washington Post articles is the inconsistency in disability ratings for the same and similar disabilities. In many instances, disability ratings assigned by the Veterans' Administration are higher than the disability ratings assigned by the military services for the same injuries. The military services are not even consistent among themselves in assigning disabilities. The Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act addresses the issue of disparate disability ratings in several ways.

First, it requires the military departments to use VA standards for rating disabilities, allowing the military to deviate from these standards only when the deviation will result in a higher disability rating for the service member. In our view, requiring all of the military departments and the VA to use the same standards should result in identical disability ratings for the same or similar disabilities.

Second, the act will change the statutory presumption used by the military departments for determining whether a disability is incurred incident to military service or existed prior to military service to mirror the statutory presumption used by the VA. Currently, the military rule is that a disability is presumed to be incident to service if a member has been in the military for 8 or more years. That leaves out a high percentage of our troops. Under the revised rule, a disability will be presumed to be incident to service when the member has 6 months or more of active military service and the disability was not noted at the time the member entered active duty, unless compelling evidence or medical judgement warrant a finding that the disability existed before the member entered active duty. This should avoid the situation where the military assigns a disability rating of zero percent on the basis that a disability existed prior to service and the VA later awards a higher disability rating and disability compensation by using the VA presumption to conclude that the very same disability is service connected.

Third, the act will require two pilot programs to test the viability of using the VA to assess disability ratings for the Department of Defense. One pilot program will require the Veterans' Administration to assign the disability ratings for the Department of Defense, based on all medical conditions that render the service member medically unfit for military service. The other pilot program will require the military department and the VA to jointly assign the disability rating, also based on all medical conditions that render the service member medically unfit for military service.

Fourth, the act will require the Secretary of Defense to establish a board to review and, where appropriate, correct disability determinations of 20 percent or less for those service members separated from service because they were medically unfit for duty after September 11, 2001. This will give our service members an opportunity to correct unwarranted low disability ratings and ensure that disability ratings are uniform and equitable.

The Institute of Medicine has just completed a study for the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, concluding that current VA standards are out of step with modern medical advances in conditions such as traumatic brain injury and modern concepts of disability. The Disability Commission is due to report to Congress on its findings and recommendations in October. The Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act will require the Department of Defense to use any updated standards as soon as the Veterans' Administration adopts them.

Our bill addresses the lack of a seamless transition from the military to the Veterans' Administration by requiring the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly develop a comprehensive policy on the care and management of service members who will transition from DOD to the VA. This policy will address the care and management of service members in a medical hold or medical holdover status, the medical evaluation and disability evaluation of disabled service members, the return of disabled service members to active duty when appropriate, and the transition of disabled service members from receipt of care and services from the Department of Defense to receipt of care and services from the VA.

Another problem identified by the committees is the inadequacy of separation pay for junior service members. Those separated with a disability rating of 30 percent or higher are medically retired with health care and additional benefits for the service members and their families. Those separated with a disability rating of less than 30 percent are discharged and given a severance pay that is based on how long they were in the military. For example, a service member with 2 years of service will receive the equivalent of only 4 months basic pay as severance pay. This bill increases the minimum severance pay to 1 year's basic pay for those separated for disabilities incurred in a combat zone and 6 months' basic pay for all others. Furthermore, under current law, severance pay is deducted from any VA disability compensation these service members receive. Our bill changes that by eliminating the requirement that severance

pay be deducted from disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a combat zone.

The signature injuries of the current conflicts are post-traumatic stress disorder, commonly referred to as PTSD, and traumatic brain injury, referred to as TBI. We still have a lot to do to adequately respond to these injuries. To address this, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act authorizes $50 million for improved diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of members with TBI or PTSD. The act also requires the Secretary of Defense to establish Centers of Excellence for PTSD and for TBI. These centers will conduct research, train health care professionals, and provide guidance throughout the Department of Defense in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of these injuries. Finally, the act requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to report to Congress with comprehensive plans to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, treat, and otherwise respond to TBI and PTSD. These plans will address improvements of personnel protective equipment in addition to addressing the medical aspects of diagnosing and treating TBI and PTSD.

We are also addressing the problem that exists because medically retired service members, who are eligible for TRICARE as retirees, do not have access to some of the cutting-edge treatments that are available to members still on active duty. To address this shortfall, the act authorizes medically retired service members with disability ratings of 50 percent or higher to receive the active duty medical benefit for 3 years after the member leaves active duty.

We are also beginning to address the problem created when parents, siblings, and others who are not normally authorized to receive military health care leave their homes to serve as caregivers to military personnel with severe injuries while the members are undergoing extensive medical treatment. In many cases, these family members leave their jobs and lose their job-related health care. Even though these family members are in a military hospital, they are not authorized to receive medical care from the doctors at that facility when they need it. To address this, the act authorizes military and VA health care providers to provide urgent and emergency medical care and counseling to family members on invitational travel orders.

One of the significant shortfalls in the smooth transition from military health care to VA health care is the inability to share health records between the two Departments. Our bill will establish a Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs Interagency Program Office to develop and implement a joint electronic health record.

The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act is a comprehensive bill that lays out a path for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to address shortfalls in the care and management of our wounded warriors. They deserve the best care and support we can muster. The American people rightly insist on no less.

Mr. AKAKA Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I was delighted to work with Senator Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and others on this important legislation, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act of 2007. I really appreciated the willingness of the Armed Services Committee staff to work in close cooperation with the Veterans' Affairs Committee staff on its drafting. This legislation would improve the policies which govern the care and management of all servicemembers with a serious illness or injury that might render them unfit for duty in order to facilitate and enhance their care, rehabilitation, and physical evaluation, as well as improve their transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

This measure is a direct outcome of an unprecedented joint hearing held on April 12, 2007, by the Senate Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees during which we heard testimony on the transition of servicemembers from DoD to VA. This measure will go a long way toward addressing the problems that first gained public attention with the stories about Walter Reed Army Medical Center and will help achieve the goal of providing optimal care and a truly seamless transition for the nation's wounded warriors.

I view issues relating to those servicemembers who may be rendered unfit as a result of an illness or injury from two different perspectives, both as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and as a member of the Armed Services Committee. As I said at the joint hearing, this is not solely a DoD or a VA problem. While DoD and VA are separate organizations, they both deal with the same servicemembers. A key element of this proposed legislation is the requirement that DoD and VA develop a comprehensive policy for transitioning those with serious illnesses or injuries from Active Duty military status to veteran status. As part of this effort, the two Departments will be required to conduct a comprehensive review of all regulations, policies, and procedures that impact these servicemembers and to identify best practices when developing joint policy. If we are going to fix the problems identified at Walter Reed, there must be uniform standards for the transition process that are understood by all parties and that are consistently applied by the military services.

I am delighted that the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act embraces the reforms to the DoD Disability Evaluation System contained in S. 1252, legislation I introduced on April 30, 2007. For the Disability Evaluation System to work fairly and consistently, there must be uniform use by the military services of VA's disability rating schedule. The services must take into account all conditions which render a servicemember unfit when making a disability rating, as well as develop a program for the uniform training of Medical Evaluation Board and Physical Evaluation Board personnel. It is also essential that DoD develop a system of accountability to ensure that the military services comply with disability rating regulations and policies.

I am pleased to note that on June 27 the Veterans' Affairs Committee will conduct a markup of legislation that will complement the efforts of the Armed Services Committee to make sure that VA appropriately addresses problems confronting seriously wounded and injured servicemembers once they become veterans.

I commend Chairman Levin and the staff of the Armed Services Committee for crafting this comprehensive legislation. It will go a long way toward providing DoD and VA with a roadmap for improving the transition processes and ensuring that seriously ill and injured servicemembers and veterans get the benefits and services they need and deserve, the benefits and services these courageous men and women have earned by their service.

I urge all of our colleagues to support this proposed legislation.

Mr. President in February, a series of articles in the Washington Post highlighted shortfalls in the care and treatment of our wounded warriors at the Walter Reed Army Hospital. These articles described deplorable living conditions for some service members in an outpatient status; a bungled, bureaucratic process for assigning disability ratings that determine whether a service member will be medically retired with health and other benefits for himself and for his family; and a clumsy handoff between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs as the military member transitions from one department to the other. The Nation's shock and dismay reflected the American people's support, respect, and gratitude for the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform. They deserve the best, not shoddy medical care and bureaucratic snafus.

The Armed Services Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee held a rare joint hearing to identify the problems our wounded soldiers are facing. These committees continue to work together to address these issues, culminating in the bill we introduce today, the Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act. Our bill addresses the issues of substandard facilities, inconsistent disability ratings, lack of seamless transition from DOD to the VA, inadequacy of severance pay, care and treatment for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, medical care for caregivers not eligible for TRICARE, and the sharing of medical records between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act requires the Secretary of Defense to establish standards for the treatment of and housing for military outpatients. These standards will require compliance with Federal and other standards for hospital facilities and operations and will be uniform and consistent throughout the Department of Defense.

Another shortfall identified in the aftermath of the Washington Post articles is the inconsistency in disability ratings for the same and similar disabilities. In many instances, disability ratings assigned by the Veterans' Administration are higher than the disability ratings assigned by the military services for the same injuries. The military services are not even consistent among themselves in assigning disabilities. The Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act addresses the issue of disparate disability ratings in several ways.

First, it requires the military departments to use VA standards for rating disabilities, allowing the military to deviate from these standards only when the deviation will result in a higher disability rating for the service member. In our view, requiring all of the military departments and the VA to use the same standards should result in identical disability ratings for the same or similar disabilities.

Second, the act will change the statutory presumption used by the military departments for determining whether a disability is incurred incident to military service or existed prior to military service to mirror the statutory presumption used by the VA. Currently, the military rule is that a disability is presumed to be incident to service if a member has been in the military for 8 or more years. That leaves out a high percentage of our troops. Under the revised rule, a disability will be presumed to be incident to service when the member has 6 months or more of active military service and the disability was not noted at the time the member entered active duty, unless compelling evidence or medical judgement warrant a finding that the disability existed before the member entered active duty. This should avoid the situation where the military assigns a disability rating of zero percent on the basis that a disability existed prior to service and the VA later awards a higher disability rating and disability compensation by using the VA presumption to conclude that the very same disability is service connected.

Third, the act will require two pilot programs to test the viability of using the VA to assess disability ratings for the Department of Defense. One pilot program will require the Veterans' Administration to assign the disability ratings for the Department of Defense, based on all medical conditions that render the service member medically unfit for military service. The other pilot program will require the military department and the VA to jointly assign the disability rating, also based on all medical conditions that render the service member medically unfit for military service.

Fourth, the act will require the Secretary of Defense to establish a board to review and, where appropriate, correct disability determinations of 20 percent or less for those service members separated from service because they were medically unfit for duty after September 11, 2001. This will give our service members an opportunity to correct unwarranted low disability ratings and ensure that disability ratings are uniform and equitable.

The Institute of Medicine has just completed a study for the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, concluding that current VA standards are out of step with modern medical advances in conditions such as traumatic brain injury and modern concepts of disability. The Disability Commission is due to report to Congress on its findings and recommendations in October. The Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act will require the Department of Defense to use any updated standards as soon as the Veterans' Administration adopts them.

Our bill addresses the lack of a seamless transition from the military to the Veterans' Administration by requiring the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly develop a comprehensive policy on the care and management of service members who will transition from DOD to the VA. This policy will address the care and management of service members in a medical hold or medical holdover status, the medical evaluation and disability evaluation of disabled service members, the return of disabled service members to active duty when appropriate, and the transition of disabled service members from receipt of care and services from the Department of Defense to receipt of care and services from the VA.

Another problem identified by the committees is the inadequacy of separation pay for junior service members. Those separated with a disability rating of 30 percent or higher are medically retired with health care and additional benefits for the service members and their families. Those separated with a disability rating of less than 30 percent are discharged and given a severance pay that is based on how long they were in the military. For example, a service member with 2 years of service will receive the equivalent of only 4 months basic pay as severance pay. This bill increases the minimum severance pay to 1 year's basic pay for those separated for disabilities incurred in a combat zone and 6 months' basic pay for all others. Furthermore, under current law, severance pay is deducted from any VA disability compensation these service members receive. Our bill changes that by eliminating the requirement that severance

pay be deducted from disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a combat zone.

The signature injuries of the current conflicts are post-traumatic stress disorder, commonly referred to as PTSD, and traumatic brain injury, referred to as TBI. We still have a lot to do to adequately respond to these injuries. To address this, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act authorizes $50 million for improved diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of members with TBI or PTSD. The act also requires the Secretary of Defense to establish Centers of Excellence for PTSD and for TBI. These centers will conduct research, train health care professionals, and provide guidance throughout the Department of Defense in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of these injuries. Finally, the act requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to report to Congress with comprehensive plans to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, treat, and otherwise respond to TBI and PTSD. These plans will address improvements of personnel protective equipment in addition to addressing the medical aspects of diagnosing and treating TBI and PTSD.

We are also addressing the problem that exists because medically retired service members, who are eligible for TRICARE as retirees, do not have access to some of the cutting-edge treatments that are available to members still on active duty. To address this shortfall, the act authorizes medically retired service members with disability ratings of 50 percent or higher to receive the active duty medical benefit for 3 years after the member leaves active duty.

We are also beginning to address the problem created when parents, siblings, and others who are not normally authorized to receive military health care leave their homes to serve as caregivers to military personnel with severe injuries while the members are undergoing extensive medical treatment. In many cases, these family members leave their jobs and lose their job-related health care. Even though these family members are in a military hospital, they are not authorized to receive medical care from the doctors at that facility when they need it. To address this, the act authorizes military and VA health care providers to provide urgent and emergency medical care and counseling to family members on invitational travel orders.

One of the significant shortfalls in the smooth transition from military health care to VA health care is the inability to share health records between the two Departments. Our bill will establish a Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs Interagency Program Office to develop and implement a joint electronic health record.

The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act is a comprehensive bill that lays out a path for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to address shortfalls in the care and management of our wounded warriors. They deserve the best care and support we can muster. The American people rightly insist on no less.

Mr. AKAKA Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I was delighted to work with Senator Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and others on this important legislation, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act of 2007. I really appreciated the willingness of the Armed Services Committee staff to work in close cooperation with the Veterans' Affairs Committee staff on its drafting. This legislation would improve the policies which govern the care and management of all servicemembers with a serious illness or injury that might render them unfit for duty in order to facilitate and enhance their care, rehabilitation, and physical evaluation, as well as improve their transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

This measure is a direct outcome of an unprecedented joint hearing held on April 12, 2007, by the Senate Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees during which we heard testimony on the transition of servicemembers from DoD to VA. This measure will go a long way toward addressing the problems that first gained public attention with the stories about Walter Reed Army Medical Center and will help achieve the goal of providing optimal care and a truly seamless transition for the nation's wounded warriors.

I view issues relating to those servicemembers who may be rendered unfit as a result of an illness or injury from two different perspectives, both as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and as a member of the Armed Services Committee. As I said at the joint hearing, this is not solely a DoD or a VA problem. While DoD and VA are separate organizations, they both deal with the same servicemembers. A key element of this proposed legislation is the requirement that DoD and VA develop a comprehensive policy for transitioning those with serious illnesses or injuries from Active Duty military status to veteran status. As part of this effort, the two Departments will be required to conduct a comprehensive review of all regulations, policies, and procedures that impact these servicemembers and to identify best practices when developing joint policy. If we are going to fix the problems identified at Walter Reed, there must be uniform standards for the transition process that are understood by all parties and that are consistently applied by the military services.

I am delighted that the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act embraces the reforms to the DoD Disability Evaluation System contained in S. 1252, legislation I introduced on April 30, 2007. For the Disability Evaluation System to work fairly and consistently, there must be uniform use by the military services of VA's disability rating schedule. The services must take into account all conditions which render a servicemember unfit when making a disability rating, as well as develop a program for the uniform training of Medical Evaluation Board and Physical Evaluation Board personnel. It is also essential that DoD develop a system of accountability to ensure that the military services comply with disability rating regulations and policies.

I am pleased to note that on June 27 the Veterans' Affairs Committee will conduct a markup of legislation that will complement the efforts of the Armed Services Committee to make sure that VA appropriately addresses problems confronting seriously wounded and injured servicemembers once they become veterans.

I commend Chairman Levin and the staff of the Armed Services Committee for crafting this comprehensive legislation. It will go a long way toward providing DoD and VA with a roadmap for improving the transition processes and ensuring that seriously ill and injured servicemembers and veterans get the benefits and services they need and deserve, the benefits and services these courageous men and women have earned by their service.

I urge all of our colleagues to support this proposed legislation.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commemorate the recommission of the USS Michigan, SSGN-727. A formal return to service ceremony will be held on Tuesday, June 12 at 1 p.m. to honor the USS Michigan and her officers and crew, which includes captain of the boat CDR Terry Takats and chief of the boat CMDCM Wayne Lassiter.

The USS Michigan will return to active duty as the second Ohio-class nuclear-powered Trident missile submarine in the U.S. Navy to be refitted from a ballistic missile submarine, SSBN, into a guided missile submarine, SSGN. This conversion has enhanced and transformed the capabilities of the USS Michigan, making it a more valuable asset and serving as an example of the Navy's ongoing transformation to face current and future threats around the world.

The USS Michigan has had a proud tradition of service, and SSGN-727 will be the third naval vessel to bear the name of our great State. The first ship to carry this name was launched by the Navy in 1843 as its first iron-hulled warship. She operated throughout the Great Lakes for her entire period of service, gaining notoriety when she helped to successfully end the Fenian invasion of Canada by intercepting supplies between Buffalo and Fort Erie, Ontario along the Niagara River.

U.S. Naval vessels bearing the Michigan name have courageously seen action against Mexico, served as convoy escorts during WWI, and most recently completed more than 33 strategic deterrent patrols throughout the world. The newly converted USS Michigan SSGN-727 will return to service with a new mission and enhanced capabilities.

The new guided missile submarine conversion program was developed by the Navy to create a more efficient and effective dual-use submarine force. The USS Michigan's successful transformation has maintained all the benefits of its predecessor, while creating a ship that will act as a force multiplier for the Navy. It has an increased payload capacity of 154 cruise missiles and the capability to more effectively house, sustain, and deploy a variety of special operations forces, allowing for a support role, as well as stealth insertion and extraction of operatives. The flexibility of this new submarine will allow it to efficiently function in a variety of multimission scenarios.

The USS Michigan is a shining example of the U.S. Navy's transformation, and I know my colleagues will join me in commemorating its return to active service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Majority Leader Harry Reid dated June 4, 2007.

Mr. President, the Do the Write Thing Challenge, or DtWT, is a national program designed to give middle school students an opportunity to examine both the causes and the effects of youth violence. In this program, students work together through classroom discussion and writing to evaluate what preventative measures should be taken with an emphasis on personal responsibility. Since the program's founding in 1994, more than 350,000 students have participated within 28 different jurisdictions, including Detroit.

In 2006, more than 40,000 students submitted their essays, poems, plays, or songs to be considered in the DtWT writing contest. These students wrote about how violence impacts their lives and what they could do to prevent its reoccurrence. Students are also asked to make a personal commitment to carry out their ideas in their daily lives.

Each year, a DtWT committee made up of business, community, and government leaders from each participating jurisdiction reviews the writing samples and selects two national finalists, one boy and one girl from their area. I am pleased to recognize this year's national finalists from Detroit, Marcelle Walker and Brandi Baldwin-Gat, for their outstanding work and dedication to the prevention of youth violence.

Marcelle and Brandi have written very passionate literary pieces about how both gang violence and domestic violence have affected their lives and have influenced them to think practically about what could and should be done. They have conveyed a deep understanding of youth violence, and I am impressed by the maturity they have shown in their work and congratulate them on being selected as national finalists.

In July, Marcelle and Brandi will join the other DtWT national finalists in Washington, DC, for National Recognition Week. They will attend a recognition ceremony and have their work permanently placed in the Library of Congress. Also, they will have the opportunity to share their thoughts on youth violence with Members of Congress and other policymakers.

I know my colleagues join me in celebrating the work of all of the DtWT participants from around the country. I would also like to thank the DtWT organizers who make a commitment to facilitating open discussions about youth violence. Their work is an essential means to the development of local solutions to the youth violence problem in our nation.

With the tragedy of Virginia Tech fresh in our minds, I believe it is important we recognize the efforts of DtWT participants and organizers to help prevent such acts of violence. It is also important that we, as Members of Congress, support their efforts through our actions. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that would help prevent youth violence by increasing police patrol on our streets, by increasing resources for school and community violence prevention programs, and by making it more difficult for children and criminals to acquire dangerous firearms.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the New Jerusalem Full Gospel Baptist Church on its Founders Day. As the largest church in Genesee County, the NJFGBC has contributed over 43 years of committed service to the southeastern Michigan community.

In 1965, the New Jerusalem Full Gospel Baptist Church was founded as the Rose Hill Baptist Mission by a small group of Genesee County citizens at the home of Rev. L.W. Owens in Flint, MI. Seven days later, the mission was renamed New Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church. The church grew steadily, and in 1968 a new and larger edifice was acquired to better accommodate the growing membership. While the congregation has undergone many changes and expansions throughout the years, it remained enthusiastically devoted to its activities and its service to the City of Flint. By the early 1990s membership had grown to more than 2,100, and the church was renamed the New Jerusalem Full Gospel Baptist Church.

In 1969, the Reverend Odis A. Floyd was unanimously elected pastor of the NJFGBC. As the grandson of the founder, Reverend Owens, Reverend Floyd has proven to be a charismatic leader of this passionate church community. In his many years of faithful service to the church, he has overseen numerous outreach programs, including Operation Blessing. This vital program is designed to provide food and clothing to those in need in the Flint community. Reverend Floyd also manages the New Jerusalem Intervention Ministry Team, which provides counseling and social work services to the less fortunate. Under Reverend Floyd's capable leadership, the New Jerusalem Full Gospel Baptist Church has become a powerful force for change in the Flint community. With over 30 years of dedicated leadership, Reverend Floyd has shown steadfast resolve and determination in his role as pastor of the New Jerusalem Full Gospel Baptist Church.

During its 43 years of existence, the New Jerusalem Full Gospel Baptist Church has made many important contributions to its community and has a rich tradition of serving Flint area residents, which is evidenced by programs such as Operation Blessing and the Intervention Ministry Team. I know my colleagues join me in commending the work of The New Jerusalem Full Gospel Baptist Church and Reverend Floyd for their many years of excellent work in the Flint community.

Mr. President, I continue to believe that Congress must act to change course in Iraq because the Bush administration will not. Congress needs to force the Iraqi political leaders to accept responsibility for their country's future. Four years of painful history have shown that the only way to accomplish that goal is to write into law a requirement that we reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq beginning in 120 days. That amount of time would give the Iraqi leaders the time to make the political settlements that are the only hope of ending the sectarian fighting.

Setting that beginning point would also force the Iraqi leaders to face the reality that we will not be their endless security blanket. That approach got 51 votes in the Senate on March 29. It was sent to the President. The President vetoed it. But pressure continues to build for a change in course, even in the President's party.

We will renew the effort to force a change in course in June when we take up the Defense authorization bill currently scheduled for late June. The way we will do that is we will make and renew the effort to require the President to begin reducing American troops in Iraq within 120 days.

I voted against the authorization to attack Iraq 4 years ago, and I will continue to fight for a bill that forces the President to do the one thing which will successfully change course in Iraq. Reducing our presence starting in 120 days is a way of telling the Iraqi leaders that we cannot save them from themselves and that only they can make the decision as to whether they want an all-out civil war or they want a nation.

I cannot vote, however, to stop funding for our troops who are in harm's way. I simply cannot, and I will not do that. It is not the proper way we can bring this war to an end. It is not the proper way we can put pressure on the Iraqi leaders. It is a way of sending the wrong message to our troops because now that they are there, and now that they are in harm's way, I believe we must give them all of the support they need.

It is not only the absence from this bill of a beginning point for troop reductions, which is so troubling, I am also concerned about the benchmarks in this bill because they are not only toothless, they may actually be counterproductive. Benchmarks with no consequences for failure to achieve them will not put the necessary pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement. Only a law requiring the reduction of our troops can do that.

The benchmarks as written in this bill are doubly problematic because the schedule for reports, July 15 and September 15, could be used as a way of forestalling pressure on the administration and the Iraqi leaders since those reports are not due until after we are planning to take up the Defense authorization bill in June.

Perhaps the supporters of the current course in Iraq will say that those of us voting to fund the troops bill before us are also signing on to the toothless benchmarks with their arguably momentum-slowing requirements. So let me say plainly, I oppose the benchmarks and the reports as provided for in this bill.

Well, let me say plainly: I oppose the toothless benchmarks and momentum-delaying reports in this bill. I agree

with the Iraq Study Group that continued U.S. military support for Iraq ``depends on the Iraqi government's demonstrating political will and making substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security and governance.''

It has been clear for a long time that there is no military solution in Iraq and that an Iraqi political settlement is necessary if there is a chance of ending the violence in Iraq.

Most telling, perhaps, was Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's acknowledgement of this essential point when he stated in November:

The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the

cycle . . . of bloodletting of innocents are the [Iraqi]

politicians.

Apparently, the Iraqi leaders, however, will realize that their future is in their hands only when they are forced into that recognition. That is one of the many reasons that we must pass a law requiring our President to begin reducing U.S. troops in Iraq in 120 days. We will continue our efforts to do so when the Defense authorization bill is before us.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are working on a new strategy in Iraq. According to the Washington Post: ``The end of 2008, is more political than military: to negotiate settlements between warring factions in Iraq from the national level down to the local level. In essence, it is as much about the political deals needed to defuse a civil war as about the military operations aimed at quelling a complex insurgency, said officials with knowledge of the plan.''

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, assuming this budget resolution conference report passes today, it will be only the second time in 5 years that Congress has finalized a budget. The annual budget resolution sets forth the necessary blueprint for the Government's spending and revenues, and I am pleased that we have an agreement to vote on this year. I am also pleased that it is a plan that can help put us back on a fiscally responsible path.

For too long now we have been digging deeper and deeper into a ditch of debt. President Bush's budget submitted to Congress in February would continue that trend by increasing the gross federal debt by nearly $3 trillion to $11.5 trillion by 2012. That's $38,000 per person. The budget resolution we are considering today can help reverse that trend.

The resolution reestablishes a strong pay-go rule, which would require any new spending or tax cuts to be paid for elsewhere in the budget or receive a supermajority of at least 60 votes in the Senate. While I know that balancing our many priorities will not become easier under this pay-go regime, I welcome its return. I am also pleased that this budget establishes a new 60-vote point of order against long-term deficit increases.

This budget also sets a blueprint for going after our country's massive $350 billion tax gap, which is the difference between the amount of taxes owed by taxpayers and the amount collected. One of the primary tax gap areas I hope Congress will focus on this year is the offshore tax haven and tax shelter abuses that are undermining the integrity of our tax system. I commend Chairman Conrad and the Budget Committee members for their willingness to take on and push Congress to address these complicated areas. There are many ways Congress can go about tackling these problems, and I hope that one of them will be to enact the Stop Tax Haven Abuses Act of 2007 that I introduced earlier this year with Senators Coleman and Obama. Our bill would crack down on a number of the offshore abuses that shift the tax burden onto ordinary taxpayers, and would be a big step toward achieving fairness in our tax system.

This budget resolution also works toward fairness in our tax system by assuming an extension of middle class tax cuts, including extensions of marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit and the 10 percent bracket. It also assumes a year of alternative minimum tax relief and estate tax reform for small businesses and family farms. While the bulk of the President's unaffordable tax cuts since 2001 have benefited only the wealthiest among us, the tax cuts assumed in this budget are aimed at helping working families. I believe they are an important part of any economic plan and should be continued.

On the spending side of the ledger, I am pleased that this budget resolution supports our men and women in uniform both in the national defense program and the additional costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am also pleased that this resolution includes the resources needed to ensure that our veterans get the health care they deserve. In total, the resolution provides more than $43 billion for the Veterans Affairs healthcare system--$3.6 billion more than President Bush's budget.

I am also pleased that this budget provides a $50 billion increase over 5 years for the Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, to expand children's health care and make sure states can maintain current caseloads. Making sure children have adequate health care should be one of our nation's top priorities. Unfortunately, President Bush's SCHIP budget proposal would have lead to the loss of critical coverage in many states. The Secretary of the Department of Heath and Human Services has even admitted that the intent of the President's proposal is to decrease the number of children enrolled in SCHIP. It is imperative that we reject that inadequate proposal, and this budget resolution does that.

This budget also represents a significant improvement over the President's budget for education. For 2008 alone, it provides an increase in discretionary funding for the education and training function of $9.5 billion above the President's request. That means more funds for Pell grants, IDEA, and No Child Left Behind Act than the President requested. It would be shameful to fail in our responsibility to our children by adopting a spending blueprint that does not provide our schools the resources they need.

It is a welcome change to be voting for a budget resolution that can change the failed fiscal policies and irresponsible tax cuts pushed by this administration. This resolution can help pave the way for important investments in America's future to put our country back on track and to begin the long process of climbing out of the ditch of debt.