Floor Statements

Madam President, I come to the Chamber today to speak about efforts that are now underway in the 110th Congress to deal with an issue the American people have become tremendously sensitized to over the last couple of years--the issue of energy, the availability of energy, and the cost of energy. I believe it is important, as we look at cost and America's reaction to it, to recognize that while Americans are paying a higher price for energy today, there has never yet been a question about the availability of energy and the supply itself. I think we forget that when we paid, in midsummer, $3 at the gas pump for gas and substantially more for diesel, it was always there, it was always available, and that never became the issue.

What I believe is important for us today, in the new Congress, under new leadership in the House and the Senate, is to not only focus on the availability of energy but also move ourselves toward being a nation that becomes independent in its ability to produce its own energy--all kinds, in all ways--for the American consumer.

I find it fascinating that somehow, in the midst of all of this, we have forgotten that while the energy is still at the pump, the lights still come on when we throw the switch in our house in the morning, and America is awash in the use of energy, we have become increasingly dependent on foreign sources for a substantial portion of the very energy that moves this country. Here is a chart which I think demonstrates that. Today, arguably, we have become 60 percent dependent upon someone else producing our hydrocarbons--our oil to produce our gas and our diesel and, of course, the plastics our country uses as a derivative of that.

In this new Congress, we should focus as aggressively as we did in the last Congress in the creation of the National Energy Policy Act of 2005. We ought to now move a major step forward toward energy independence by not only encouraging the increased production of all forms of energy but looking to see if Government stands in the way of that. Is Government promoting it or are we inhibiting it and forcing those who supply our energy to progressively seek offshore sources of that supply?

The new Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that I serve on, under the guidance of Jeff Bingaman, recently held a hearing on who supplies the oil for the world. Is it ExxonMobil? No. Is it Conoco? No. Is it Phillips? No, even though we think it is because that is where we get our fuel when we go to the gas pump. What we found out and what many have known is that 80 percent of the world's oil supplies are controlled by governments. And they are not our Government. They are controlled by government or government-owned companies.

I recently gave a speech to a group of oil producers. I talked about petro nationalism and a growing concern in this country that the world that supplies this portion of our oil can use their political muscle but, more importantly, the valve on the pipeline of the oil supply, to determine the kind of politics and international relations they want to have with us, knowing how we have become so dependent upon that supply.

I hope we continue to focus on supply and availability instead of doing what some are saying we are going to do. We are going to punish the oil companies because they are making too much money. We are going to tax them, and we are going to tax the consumer because somehow that will produce more oil? No, no, no. That is politics, folks. That is, plain and simply, big-time politics, to show the consumer you are macho, that somehow you will knock down the big boys who supply the oil.

Ask the questions, if you are a consumer: Will that keep oil at the pump? Will that keep gas available to me? Will that produce more gas to bring down the price? Those are the legitimate questions that ought to be answered when the leadership of the new Senate says: No, we will muscle up to the big boys and knock 'em down because somehow they may be price gouging. Yet investigation after investigation after investigation suggests that is quite the opposite. That simply is not happening.

Nowhere are they going to tell you in all of this political rhetoric that I would hope would take us toward energy independence and a greater sense of energy security in our country that the new deep wells we are drilling in the gulf that produce or new oil supply could cost upward of $1 billion a well in actual expenses before the oil begins to flow out of that well and into the ships or into the pipelines that take it to the refineries that ultimately put it in the pipeline that get it to the consumers' pumps. And the issue goes on and on.

I hope that in this Congress, while some will want to play politics, a good many will focus on the reality not only of what we have done, which has been very successful in the last few years--and that is the Energy Policy Act of 2005--but go on with the business of setting goals and driving incentives that move us to energy independence. It is phenomenally important we do that as a country. Long-term investment, new technologies, clean sources of energy are going to become increasingly important.

But more important is that we can stand as a Nation and say we are independent of the political pressures of the Middle East or the political pressures of Venezuela or the political pressures of Central Europe and Russia, that now control the world's supply of oil. That is what Americans ought to be asking our Congress at this time. Are you going to ensure an increased supply? Are you going to ensure a greater sense of independence by the reality of where our oil comes from?

This is not just an issue of oil. We know it is an issue of new technology. It is an issue of cleanness. It is an issue of nonemitting greenhouse gas sources of energy because today we are all about clean energy. And we ought to be. Yet we understand the agenda for climate change is going to be a punitive one, one that would obviously distort a market's growth toward cleaner supplies. It is called cap and trade or command and control instead of saying, yes, that is the old technology. Now let's invest in new technologies. Instead of penalizing, let's create the incentives that move toward new technologies and let us then lay down the old. That is how we cause America to become increasingly energy independent. I am talking climate change.

The Speaker of the House yesterday did something very fascinating. She couldn't get the climate change she wanted out of her own committee so she has created a new select committee on climate change to be headed up by Representative Ed Markey. I remember Representative Markey over the years: All antinuclear, day after day, year after year. He lost that battle. Americans said: You are not going to go there anymore. You are going to start producing energy because it is clean. Now he has been assigned a select committee on climate change.

Congressman Dingell, who chairs the appropriate committee, said select committees are about as useful as feathers on a fish. Congressman Dingell gets it right.

What is useful, what is important in the argument of climate change, is new technology, it is incentives, it is producing energy in today's market that is, by any dimension, cleaner than what we produced in the past. You do not penalize the producer, you incentivize the producer to make sure that they move in the direction of clean energy. When you do that, you also say, as we said in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and as we sought to say again and again and again to the consumer, we are going to provide you with the tools to conserve, to become more efficient in your use of energy.

All of those things, in combination over the next 10 to 15 years, clearly ought to allow this country to stand up and say we have narrowed this gap; we are more independent as a Nation today in our supply of energy than we were in 2007, and we are more independent because our Government stood up, got out of the way, incentivized,

created those kinds of tools that the private sector could effectively use for an ever-increasing supply of clean energy and that we, as consumers, were given the tools to become more efficient in the use of those clean supplies of energy.

I hope that ought to be and will become the mission of this new Congress, not to play games with the politics they thought brought them to power but to realize that the American consumer still is going to ask that the gas pump be full of energy, that the light switch supplies electricity in the morning and that, hopefully, it will come in a cleaner form and it won't cost any more than it has cost in the past in relation to cost of living and inflation.

Those are the realities of a marketplace that we ought to help, not penalize. Is that politically wise to do? In the long run, it is very politically wise to do because then America can stand on its own two feet. It will not have to bow to the suppliers, such as Russia and the Middle East, and to let a dictator in Venezuela jerk us around because he has a major supply of oil. We can say: No, we supply our own. We are independent. We have been responsible in doing so, and we did it in a clean and diverse way.

It is a phenomenal challenge for us but a challenge that is important to meet.

Mr. President, the last Congress worked long and hard to resolve one of the most contentious issues of our time: immigration. As many of our colleagues know, while a number of border enforcement measures were enacted, we did not complete all the critical elements of a comprehensive strategy on immigration reform.

Today, I am joining with Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Specter, Leahy, Martinez, Voinovich, McCain, Hagel, Domenici, Boxer, Clinton, Obama, Kohl, Salazar, Murray, and Schumer in reintroducing legislation to address a very important piece of that unfinished business: the establishment of a workable, secure, effective temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with jobs that Americans are unwilling or unable to perform.

Our legislation is specific to U.S. agriculture, because this economic sector, more than any other, has become dependent for its existence on the labor of immigrants who are here without legal documentation. The only program currently in place to respond to a lack of legal domestic agricultural workers, the H-2A Guest Worker Program, is profoundly broken. Outside of H-2A, farm employers have no effective, reliable assurance that their employees are legal.

The bill we are reintroducing is called AgJOBS--the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act. This bill was part of the comprehensive immigration legislation passed last year by the Senate. Today's version incorporates a few language changes that update, but do not substantively amend, that measure.

We are reintroducing AgJOBS to fix the serious flaws that plague our country's current agricultural labor system. Agriculture has unique workforce needs because of the special nature of its products and production, and our bill addresses those needs.

Our bill offers a thoughtful, thorough, two-step solution. On a one- time basis, experienced, trusted workers with a significant work history in American agriculture would be allowed to stay here legally and earn adjustment to legal status. For workers and growers using the H-2A legal guest worker program, that program would be overhauled and made more streamlined, practical, and secure.

This legislation has been tested and examined for years in the Senate and House of Representatives, and it remains the best alternative for resolving urgent problems in our agriculture that require immediate attention. That is why AgJOBS has been endorsed by a historic, broad- based coalition of more than 400 national, State, and local organizations, including farmworkers, growers, the general business community, Latino and immigration issue groups, taxpayer groups, other public interest organizations, State directors of agriculture, and religious groups.

We all want and need a stable, predictable, legal workforce in American agriculture. Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in line for available jobs with fair market wages. All workers should receive decent treatment and protection of fundamental legal rights. Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply. American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders and a government that works.

AgJOBS would serve all these goals.

Last year, we saw millions of dollars' worth of produce rot in the fields for lack of workers. We are beginning to hear talk of farms moving out of the country, moving to the foreign workforce. All Americans face the danger of losing more and more of our safe, domestic food supply to imports.

Time is running out for American agriculture, farmworkers, and consumers. What was a problem years ago is a crisis today and will be a catastrophe if we do not act immediately. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their support for U.S. agriculture by cosponsoring the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--AgJOBS 2007-- and by helping us pass this critical legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. President, the last Congress worked long and hard to resolve one of the most contentious issues of our time: immigration. As many of our colleagues know, while a number of border enforcement measures were enacted, we did not complete all the critical elements of a comprehensive strategy on immigration reform.

Today, I am joining with Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Specter, Leahy, Martinez, Voinovich, McCain, Hagel, Domenici, Boxer, Clinton, Obama, Kohl, Salazar, Murray, and Schumer in reintroducing legislation to address a very important piece of that unfinished business: the establishment of a workable, secure, effective temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with jobs that Americans are unwilling or unable to perform.

Our legislation is specific to U.S. agriculture, because this economic sector, more than any other, has become dependent for its existence on the labor of immigrants who are here without legal documentation. The only program currently in place to respond to a lack of legal domestic agricultural workers, the H-2A Guest Worker Program, is profoundly broken. Outside of H-2A, farm employers have no effective, reliable assurance that their employees are legal.

The bill we are reintroducing is called AgJOBS--the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act. This bill was part of the comprehensive immigration legislation passed last year by the Senate. Today's version incorporates a few language changes that update, but do not substantively amend, that measure.

We are reintroducing AgJOBS to fix the serious flaws that plague our country's current agricultural labor system. Agriculture has unique workforce needs because of the special nature of its products and production, and our bill addresses those needs.

Our bill offers a thoughtful, thorough, two-step solution. On a one- time basis, experienced, trusted workers with a significant work history in American agriculture would be allowed to stay here legally and earn adjustment to legal status. For workers and growers using the H-2A legal guest worker program, that program would be overhauled and made more streamlined, practical, and secure.

This legislation has been tested and examined for years in the Senate and House of Representatives, and it remains the best alternative for resolving urgent problems in our agriculture that require immediate attention. That is why AgJOBS has been endorsed by a historic, broad- based coalition of more than 400 national, State, and local organizations, including farmworkers, growers, the general business community, Latino and immigration issue groups, taxpayer groups, other public interest organizations, State directors of agriculture, and religious groups.

We all want and need a stable, predictable, legal workforce in American agriculture. Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in line for available jobs with fair market wages. All workers should receive decent treatment and protection of fundamental legal rights. Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply. American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders and a government that works.

AgJOBS would serve all these goals.

Last year, we saw millions of dollars' worth of produce rot in the fields for lack of workers. We are beginning to hear talk of farms moving out of the country, moving to the foreign workforce. All Americans face the danger of losing more and more of our safe, domestic food supply to imports.

Time is running out for American agriculture, farmworkers, and consumers. What was a problem years ago is a crisis today and will be a catastrophe if we do not act immediately. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their support for U.S. agriculture by cosponsoring the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--AgJOBS 2007-- and by helping us pass this critical legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. President, the last Congress worked long and hard to resolve one of the most contentious issues of our time: immigration. As many of our colleagues know, while a number of border enforcement measures were enacted, we did not complete all the critical elements of a comprehensive strategy on immigration reform.

Yesterday, I joined with Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Martinez, Voinovich, and Boxer in reintroducing legislation to address a very important piece of that unfinished business: the establishment of a workable, secure, effective temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with jobs that Americans are unwilling or unable to perform.

Our legislation is specific to U.S. agriculture because this economic sector, more than any other, has become dependent for its existence on the labor of immigrants who are here without legal documentation. The only program currently in place to respond to a lack of legal domestic agricultural workers, the H-2A guest worker program, is profoundly broken. Outside of H-2A, farm employers have no effective, reliable assurance that their employees are legal.

The bill we reintroduced is called AgJOBS--the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act. This bill was part of the comprehensive immigration legislation passed last year by the Senate. Today's version incorporates a few language changes that update, but do not substantively amend, that measure.

We are reintroducing AgJOBS to fix the serious flaws that plague our country's current agricultural labor system. Agriculture has unique workforce needs because of the special nature of its products and production, and our bill addresses those needs.

Our bill offers a thoughtful, thorough, two-step solution. On a one- time basis, experienced, trusted workers with a significant work history in American agriculture would be allowed to stay here legally and earn adjustment to legal status. For workers and growers using the H-2A legal guest worker program, that program would be overhauled and made more streamlined, practical, and secure.

This legislation has been tested and examined for years in the Senate and House of Representatives, and it remains the best alternative for resolving urgent problems in our agriculture that require immediate attention. That is why AgJOBS has been endorsed by a historic, broad- based coalition of more than 400 national, State, and local organizations, including farmworkers, growers, the general business community, Latino and immigration issue groups, taxpayer groups, other public interest organizations, State directors of agriculture, and religious groups.

We all want and need a stable, predictable, legal workforce in American agriculture. Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in line for available jobs with fair market wages. All workers should receive

decent treatment and protection of fundamental legal rights. Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply. American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders and a government that works.

AgJOBS would serve all these goals.

Last year, we saw millions of dollars' worth of produce rot in the fields for lack of workers. We are beginning to hear talk of farms moving out of the country, moving to the foreign workforce. All Americans face the danger of losing more and more of our safe, domestic food supply to imports.

Time is running out for American agriculture, farmworkers, and consumers. What was a problem years ago is a crisis today and will be a catastrophe if we do not act immediately. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their support for U.S. agriculture by cosponsoring the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--AgJOBS 2007-- and by helping us pass this critical legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Enzi, Stevens, Bennett, Murkowski, and Bunning, the National Geologic Maping Reauthorization Act of 2007. This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves to be reauthorized.

The National Geologic Mapping Act was originally signed into law in 1992, creating the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP). This program exists as a partnership between the USGS and the State geological surveys, whose purpose is to provide the Nation with urgently-needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, and geology essential for all types of land use planning; as well as providing basic scientific data. The NCGMP contains three parts; FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, StateMap--the State geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our colleges and universities. All three components are reviewed annually by a Federal Advisory Committee to ensure program effectiveness and to provide future guidance.

FedMap geologic mapping priorities are determined by the needs of Federal land-management agencies, regional customer forums, and cooperatively with the State geological surveys. FedMap also coordinates national geologic mapping standards. StateMap is a competitive program wherein the States submit proposals for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of this section of the legislation is that each Federal dollar be matched one-for-one with State funds. Each participating State has a State Advisory Committee to ensure that its proposal addresses priority areas and needs as determined in the NGMA. The success of this program ensured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 and in 1999 with widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.

To date, millions of dollars been awarded to State geological surveys through StateMap, and these Federal dollars have been more than matched by State dollars. The high quality geologic maps produced will be used by a very broad base of customers including geotechnical consultants, Federal, State and local land managers, and mineral and energy exploration companies. Information on how to obtain all of these maps is provided on the Internet by the National Geologic Map Database, allowing ease of access for all users.

EdMap has trained over 550 university students at 118 universities across the Nation. The best testament to the quality of this training are its beneficiaries--an unusually high percentage of these students go on to careers in Earth Science, becoming university professors, energy company exploration scientists, or mapping specialists themselves. Their EdMap program experience provides them with a remarkable self-confidence, having completed a difficult and independent field mapping experience.

The National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate, usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so that safe, educated resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely consideration.

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

Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Enzi, Stevens, Bennett, Murkowski, and Bunning, the National Geologic Maping Reauthorization Act of 2007. This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves to be reauthorized.

The National Geologic Mapping Act was originally signed into law in 1992, creating the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP). This program exists as a partnership between the USGS and the State geological surveys, whose purpose is to provide the Nation with urgently-needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, and geology essential for all types of land use planning; as well as providing basic scientific data. The NCGMP contains three parts; FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, StateMap--the State geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our colleges and universities. All three components are reviewed annually by a Federal Advisory Committee to ensure program effectiveness and to provide future guidance.

FedMap geologic mapping priorities are determined by the needs of Federal land-management agencies, regional customer forums, and cooperatively with the State geological surveys. FedMap also coordinates national geologic mapping standards. StateMap is a competitive program wherein the States submit proposals for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of this section of the legislation is that each Federal dollar be matched one-for-one with State funds. Each participating State has a State Advisory Committee to ensure that its proposal addresses priority areas and needs as determined in the NGMA. The success of this program ensured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 and in 1999 with widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.

To date, millions of dollars been awarded to State geological surveys through StateMap, and these Federal dollars have been more than matched by State dollars. The high quality geologic maps produced will be used by a very broad base of customers including geotechnical consultants, Federal, State and local land managers, and mineral and energy exploration companies. Information on how to obtain all of these maps is provided on the Internet by the National Geologic Map Database, allowing ease of access for all users.

EdMap has trained over 550 university students at 118 universities across the Nation. The best testament to the quality of this training are its beneficiaries--an unusually high percentage of these students go on to careers in Earth Science, becoming university professors, energy company exploration scientists, or mapping specialists themselves. Their EdMap program experience provides them with a remarkable self-confidence, having completed a difficult and independent field mapping experience.

The National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate, usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so that safe, educated resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely consideration.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2007. This Act authorizes prepayment by landowners of their allocated portion of the obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within A&B Irrigation District and will allow individual landowners to prepay their obligations if they so desire. Additionally, the Act will allow the landowners who

have prepaid to be exempt from the acreage limitation provisions set in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, thereby creating an appropriate market for the sale of those lands now owned by landowners who have either died or have retired.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this necessary bill through the legislative process quickly.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation that I introduced last November along with the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, and that I am again introducing today. The bill would expand the number of eligible recipients of retroactive payments under the Traumatic Injury Protection under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, or ``TSGLI'', benefit. Most of my colleagues have perhaps heard the story of how this important benefit became law and what its intended purpose is, but I believe it is worth repeating.

In April of 2005 I was visited by three servicemembers who were seriously injured during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). They were members of an organization called the Wounded Warrior Project, and they told me of their lengthy recovery times at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the financial toll that that period of convalescence had on them and their families. They talked about wives, parents, and other relatives who had taken long absences from work, and some who had even quit their work, in order to spend time with those recovering at Walter Reed. And they told me that the Department of Veterans Affairs compensation system was no help because, by law, those benefits do not kick in until after separation from service.

Based on their experiences, these wounded warriors recommended that I pursue legislation to create a new insurance benefit for those with traumatic injuries such as theirs. The insurance would pay between $25,000 and $100,000 as soon as possible after an injury occurred, thereby bridging the gap in assistance needed during the time of a wounded servicemember's recovery and the time of his or her separation from service. They asked that I make the legislation prospective only, meaning that they, and hundreds of others, would go without any TSGLI payment. I honored that request and, together with Senator Akaka and other Members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, introduced an amendment to the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill then pending before the Senate.

A second degree amendment was later unanimously agreed to which authorized retroactive benefit payments to all of those injured in the Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) theaters of operation--providing for TSGLI payments to hundreds of servicemembers who had been seriously injured since the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, the retroactive TSGLI provision was consistent with other retroactive benefits approved within the Emergency Supplemental bill, such as $238,000 in combined Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) and death gratuity benefits that were provided retroactively to survivors of those killed in combat operations since the start of the War on Terror. Needless to say, the TSGLI amendments were approved by the Congress and enacted into law.

Fast forward to the present. TSGLI has been up and running since December 1, 2005, and provides financial assistance of $25,000 to $100,000 to traumatically injured servicemembers within, on average, 60 days of the date of the injury causing event. As of January 5, 2007, almost 2,233 wounded OIF/OEF servicemembers have benefited under the retroactive portion of the program. For those with injuries post December 1, 2005, it does not matter if an injury occurs as a result of combat operations or training exercises--payment under TSGLI is available in either situation; 626 wounded servicemembers have benefited under this aspect of the program.

The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the TSGLI benefit in September 2006. The Committee received testimony from the Wounded Warrior Project, the organization largely responsible for TSGLI's conception. While very pleased with the program overall, a serious concern was raised regarding the equity of only extending retroactive TSGLI payments to those injured during Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Mr. Jeremy Chwat, testifying for the Wounded

Warrior Project that day, used the example of one servicemember as representative of others who are not now eligible for benefits:

Brave men and women like Seaman Robert Roeder who was

injured on January 29, 2005 when an arresting wire on the

aircraft carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, severed his left leg

below the knee . . . Although the ship was on its way to the

Gulf and the training exercises being conducted were in

preparation for action in either Operation Enduring or Iraqi

Freedom, Robert's injury does not qualify for payment.

Furthermore, since enactment of the 2005 Emergency Supplemental, retroactive SGLI and death gratuity benefits combining $238,000 have been expanded to provide payments to survivors of all servicemembers who died on active duty, whether in combat or not. The reason behind the expansion of retroactive benefits was a recognition that military service is universal in character; that each military man or woman, no matter where they are serving, contributes in a unique way to make the United States Armed Forces second to none.

The legislation I am again introducing today, along with Senator Akaka, will make the TSGLI retroactive payment eligibility criteria consistent with the other benefit program retroactive payment criteria I just mentioned. Thus, if this legislation is enacted, all traumatically injured servicemembers who served between October 7, 2001, and December 1, 2005, will be eligible for TSGLI payments, irrespective of where their injuries occurred. Unofficial estimates from VA suggest that there may be over 215 active duty personnel who, like Seaman Roeder, sustained traumatic injuries during this time period while performing their military duties.

Both the Wounded Warrior Project and the National Military Families Association have expressed their support for this bill. And I now ask my colleagues for their support. This is the right thing to do for our military men and women.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2007. This Act authorizes prepayment by landowners of their allocated portion of the obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within A&B Irrigation District and will allow individual landowners to prepay their obligations if they so desire. Additionally, the Act will allow the landowners who

have prepaid to be exempt from the acreage limitation provisions set in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, thereby creating an appropriate market for the sale of those lands now owned by landowners who have either died or have retired.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this necessary bill through the legislative process quickly.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation that I introduced last November along with the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, and that I am again introducing today. The bill would expand the number of eligible recipients of retroactive payments under the Traumatic Injury Protection under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, or ``TSGLI'', benefit. Most of my colleagues have perhaps heard the story of how this important benefit became law and what its intended purpose is, but I believe it is worth repeating.

In April of 2005 I was visited by three servicemembers who were seriously injured during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). They were members of an organization called the Wounded Warrior Project, and they told me of their lengthy recovery times at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the financial toll that that period of convalescence had on them and their families. They talked about wives, parents, and other relatives who had taken long absences from work, and some who had even quit their work, in order to spend time with those recovering at Walter Reed. And they told me that the Department of Veterans Affairs compensation system was no help because, by law, those benefits do not kick in until after separation from service.

Based on their experiences, these wounded warriors recommended that I pursue legislation to create a new insurance benefit for those with traumatic injuries such as theirs. The insurance would pay between $25,000 and $100,000 as soon as possible after an injury occurred, thereby bridging the gap in assistance needed during the time of a wounded servicemember's recovery and the time of his or her separation from service. They asked that I make the legislation prospective only, meaning that they, and hundreds of others, would go without any TSGLI payment. I honored that request and, together with Senator Akaka and other Members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, introduced an amendment to the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill then pending before the Senate.

A second degree amendment was later unanimously agreed to which authorized retroactive benefit payments to all of those injured in the Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) theaters of operation--providing for TSGLI payments to hundreds of servicemembers who had been seriously injured since the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, the retroactive TSGLI provision was consistent with other retroactive benefits approved within the Emergency Supplemental bill, such as $238,000 in combined Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) and death gratuity benefits that were provided retroactively to survivors of those killed in combat operations since the start of the War on Terror. Needless to say, the TSGLI amendments were approved by the Congress and enacted into law.

Fast forward to the present. TSGLI has been up and running since December 1, 2005, and provides financial assistance of $25,000 to $100,000 to traumatically injured servicemembers within, on average, 60 days of the date of the injury causing event. As of January 5, 2007, almost 2,233 wounded OIF/OEF servicemembers have benefited under the retroactive portion of the program. For those with injuries post December 1, 2005, it does not matter if an injury occurs as a result of combat operations or training exercises--payment under TSGLI is available in either situation; 626 wounded servicemembers have benefited under this aspect of the program.

The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the TSGLI benefit in September 2006. The Committee received testimony from the Wounded Warrior Project, the organization largely responsible for TSGLI's conception. While very pleased with the program overall, a serious concern was raised regarding the equity of only extending retroactive TSGLI payments to those injured during Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Mr. Jeremy Chwat, testifying for the Wounded

Warrior Project that day, used the example of one servicemember as representative of others who are not now eligible for benefits:

Brave men and women like Seaman Robert Roeder who was

injured on January 29, 2005 when an arresting wire on the

aircraft carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, severed his left leg

below the knee . . . Although the ship was on its way to the

Gulf and the training exercises being conducted were in

preparation for action in either Operation Enduring or Iraqi

Freedom, Robert's injury does not qualify for payment.

Furthermore, since enactment of the 2005 Emergency Supplemental, retroactive SGLI and death gratuity benefits combining $238,000 have been expanded to provide payments to survivors of all servicemembers who died on active duty, whether in combat or not. The reason behind the expansion of retroactive benefits was a recognition that military service is universal in character; that each military man or woman, no matter where they are serving, contributes in a unique way to make the United States Armed Forces second to none.

The legislation I am again introducing today, along with Senator Akaka, will make the TSGLI retroactive payment eligibility criteria consistent with the other benefit program retroactive payment criteria I just mentioned. Thus, if this legislation is enacted, all traumatically injured servicemembers who served between October 7, 2001, and December 1, 2005, will be eligible for TSGLI payments, irrespective of where their injuries occurred. Unofficial estimates from VA suggest that there may be over 215 active duty personnel who, like Seaman Roeder, sustained traumatic injuries during this time period while performing their military duties.

Both the Wounded Warrior Project and the National Military Families Association have expressed their support for this bill. And I now ask my colleagues for their support. This is the right thing to do for our military men and women.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. CRAIG pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 1 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the balanced budget

amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I, for some years, along with my colleagues in a bipartisan way, have spoke to this issue. Today, in a new year and in a new Congress, Americans are eager to see a new direction for our country. They have seen Federal spending increase by $200 billion from fiscal years 2005 to 2006. They have watched the Federal deficit swell into hundreds of billions of dollars, and they have borne the costs. Our spending system is broken and, in my opinion, so is our Tax Code.

The new year is a time for new solutions to this problem. When new solutions that draw upon old principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility and tax simplicity and fairness are how you approach a problem, I think Americans once again will listen, and they will allow us to build a system that increasingly builds faith, once again, with the American people and America's taxpayers. It is simply getting back to basics. We must look at the big picture of Federal spending as a crisis in our country and begin to speak the language that is fundamental to reform in itself, not instead of half measures or bits or pieces or nibbling around the edges. But as both of our leaders have spoken in the last hour to bipartisan efforts, they speak of bold strokes to solving problems for America, and I think that is what Americans expect of us as their leaders. We must look at it simply and reduce the deficit--I would hope we could eliminate it--and to do so with a Tax Code that is fairer, more balanced, certainly simpler, and not so complex that the American taxpayers collectively have to spend billions of dollars a year simply in complying with the Tax Code itself.

In the coming months, I will address all three components of the Federal spending crisis, including a flat tax and a budget process that reforms what we get done here, and that we get it done in a timely manner. I begin with a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. For many Americans, one of the signs of our deep respect for the Constitution is to acknowledge that, in exceptional cases, a problem finally rises to a level that it can only be addressed through a constitutional adjustment in our government.

I believe spending is at that crisis level and we here, Democrat and Republican, have demonstrated our inability to deal with it in a timely and responsible fashion. So it is time we act. My balanced budget amendment would require Congress to pass a balanced budget every year to ensure that Social Security surpluses are set aside exclusively to meet the future needs of beneficiaries and to require a supermajority in both the House and the Senate to raise the Nation's debt limit. In addition, it recognizes that national security is a priority of this Congress by providing essential exceptions for war and imminent military threats. In other words, over the last several years a balanced budget amendment would not have deterred us from funding, as appropriate and necessary, our engagement in Iraq and to make sure the men and women who are there on the front lines today are adequately provided with the necessary tools.

Thomas Jefferson said it so well, and he said this:

. . .with respect to future debt, would it not be wise and

just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are

forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself

can validly contract more debt than they may pay?

His logic is simple. His logic is right. I urge you to join me in making fiscal responsibility constitutionally acceptable--and a habit-- of this Nation's Capitol.

With the first piece of legislation I introduce to the 110th Congress, I call on the Senate to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a bill of economic rights for our future and our children.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Today on the first day of the 110th Congress, I wish to recognize the accomplishment of the Boise State University Broncos football team this past Monday, January 1, 2007.

College sports have a way of putting schools, and cities, on the map. For instance, George Mason University was virtually unknown until their basketball team catapulted into the national spotlight through March Madness last year. However, no sport is more adept at this than the all-American sport of football.

On New Year's Day, Boise State University battled Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. One announcer commented that, until today, many of the Oklahoma football players didn't even know where Boise is. Well, Mr. President, they do now.

In what is being described as one of the most thrilling games in the history of college bowl games, the Broncos defeated Oklahoma 43 to 42. I can't begin to describe to you the enthusiasm of the Bronco fans before, during, and especially after the game. It was contagious. And that is coming from a proud Idaho Vandal.

Idaho is a small State. We haven't had nationally known sports teams. It wasn't too long ago that Boise State was only known in football circles for its blue football field. On the first day of 2007, that all changed.

I am proud of what our Broncos did proving to the Nation that Idaho knows how to play football.

With this new notoriety, of course, comes an opportunity for us to tell the country that Idaho's State-run universities have a lot to offer besides great football. Between Boise State, the University of Idaho, and Idaho State University, Idaho offers tremendous education with a quality of life that can't be beat.

Boise, Idaho is now on the map of millions of college football fans thanks to our Broncos. To them I say congratulations and thank you.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the balanced budget

amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I, for some years, along with my colleagues in a bipartisan way, have spoke to this issue. Today, in a new year and in a new Congress, Americans are eager to see a new direction for our country. They have seen Federal spending increase by $200 billion from fiscal years 2005 to 2006. They have watched the Federal deficit swell into hundreds of billions of dollars, and they have borne the costs. Our spending system is broken and, in my opinion, so is our Tax Code.

The new year is a time for new solutions to this problem. When new solutions that draw upon old principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility and tax simplicity and fairness are how you approach a problem, I think Americans once again will listen, and they will allow us to build a system that increasingly builds faith, once again, with the American people and America's taxpayers. It is simply getting back to basics. We must look at the big picture of Federal spending as a crisis in our country and begin to speak the language that is fundamental to reform in itself, not instead of half measures or bits or pieces or nibbling around the edges. But as both of our leaders have spoken in the last hour to bipartisan efforts, they speak of bold strokes to solving problems for America, and I think that is what Americans expect of us as their leaders. We must look at it simply and reduce the deficit--I would hope we could eliminate it--and to do so with a Tax Code that is fairer, more balanced, certainly simpler, and not so complex that the American taxpayers collectively have to spend billions of dollars a year simply in complying with the Tax Code itself.

In the coming months, I will address all three components of the Federal spending crisis, including a flat tax and a budget process that reforms what we get done here, and that we get it done in a timely manner. I begin with a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. For many Americans, one of the signs of our deep respect for the Constitution is to acknowledge that, in exceptional cases, a problem finally rises to a level that it can only be addressed through a constitutional adjustment in our government.

I believe spending is at that crisis level and we here, Democrat and Republican, have demonstrated our inability to deal with it in a timely and responsible fashion. So it is time we act. My balanced budget amendment would require Congress to pass a balanced budget every year to ensure that Social Security surpluses are set aside exclusively to meet the future needs of beneficiaries and to require a supermajority in both the House and the Senate to raise the Nation's debt limit. In addition, it recognizes that national security is a priority of this Congress by providing essential exceptions for war and imminent military threats. In other words, over the last several years a balanced budget amendment would not have deterred us from funding, as appropriate and necessary, our engagement in Iraq and to make sure the men and women who are there on the front lines today are adequately provided with the necessary tools.

Thomas Jefferson said it so well, and he said this:

. . .with respect to future debt, would it not be wise and

just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are

forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself

can validly contract more debt than they may pay?

His logic is simple. His logic is right. I urge you to join me in making fiscal responsibility constitutionally acceptable--and a habit-- of this Nation's Capitol.

With the first piece of legislation I introduce to the 110th Congress, I call on the Senate to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a bill of economic rights for our future and our children.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, what is the current status on the floor?

Mr. President, I have sought recognition in these waning hours of the 109th Congress to provide a summary of the good work accomplished over the last 2 years on behalf of America's veterans, and to comment on comprehensive legislation that is now pending in the Senate. I provide this summary in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a title I will soon pass on to my friend, Senator Danny Akaka of Hawaii.

Before the 109th Congress convened, I made a decision to serve as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

for two fundamental reasons. The first and most important was that our country was at war and continues to be at war, and a nation at war, with hundreds of thousands of young men and women having spent extensive tours overseas in hostile lands, fighting for our country, deserves the full attention of the Senate. Many have died during the course of combat operations. Others have been seriously wounded. Thousands more will transition out of the military service in the coming years and will attempt to reenter the workforce or go to school under the Montgomery GI bill. There simply was no greater calling than for me to assume the leadership role to ensure our Government was effectively assisting the current generation of America's veterans and their families.

Second, I have always been nonplused, I guess, at the characterization that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs was a ``B'' committee. This characterization exists despite these facts. Mr. President, 24 million Americans have served in the military and are potentially eligible for VA-administered benefits. In addition, VA will soon have a budget over $80 billion, which is one of the largest and fastest growing budgets within Government. And finally, VA has the second largest Federal workforce of any Government agency.

Therefore, it was my goal to elevate the committee's profile and the importance of the veterans' benefits and services by embarking on a course of vigorous oversight and legislative effort and, I believe, accomplishment.

It is my humble opinion that I share the credit with 13 other members of the committee. One of them is here on the floor with me, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who also served not only on the authorizing committee with me but chairs VA MilCon and has played a critical role in veterans issues. We have been diligent and active participants of the committee, and the business of this committee, in my opinion, has been extremely productive in the last 2 years.

The committee held 52 hearings during the 109th Congress. From the start, our focus was on the combat wounded, the combat deceased, and their families. We held a hearing on the difficulty that surviving spouses have in getting timely and effective, consistent information regarding their benefits following the active-duty death of their loved one.

We held several hearings on whether returned combat veterans are provided with a seamless transition--many of us have heard those words used--from active duty to civilian life. We are still working with DOD on that, to make sure it is truly seamless.

We focused on medical and vocational needs of our severely wounded. We examined the research being done within the VA to advance our understanding of various diseases and disabilities confronting veterans in the hope that advances in medical science and technology could one day improve their lives. And there is clear evidence today that that very thing is happening.

The committee was particularly active in examining VA's budget needs, and no one can argue about the high priority this Congress placed on funding the VA system.

The total VA budget will have increased from approximately $63 billion at the end of fiscal year 2004 to over $80 billion upon enactment of a fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill, an increase of 27 percent.

In addition to resources provided, this Congress has put in place a system of accountability to ensure that the appropriations provided to VA are being used to meet the needs of those who rely on the vital health care provided by VA facilities around the Nation.

By law, VA now submits quarterly reports to the Congress on its budget that contain a comparison between VA's planned expenditures and actual expenditures.

More importantly, VA is required to include quality indicators in this report, such as the percentage of primary care appointments scheduled within 30 days of a patient's desired date.

I am confident that the Congress has the mechanisms in place to know, on short order, if VA's budget needs are outpacing its resources, and is therefore equipped to take swift remedial action if necessary.

On the legislative front, the Senate has continued to do the work expected of it by the men and women we serve and represent. Let me give a quick accounting of the legislative provisions that were enacted into law during this Congress:

First S. 1234 and S. 2562. In both the first and second sessions of the Congress, cost-of-living-adjustment legislation was enacted to increase the rates of disability compensation and survivors' compensation. Benefit rates were increased by 4.1 percent for 2006 and will be increased by 3.3 percent for 2007.

Second, Traumatic Injury Protection under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, T-SGLI. In many instances the wives, parents, and other family members of servicemembers who are traumatically injured incur substantial financial obligations in order to spend time with their loved ones during recovery periods at military hospitals.

Under the provisions of Public Law 109-13, those traumatically wounded since the start of OIF and OEF as a result of combat wounds are eligible for financial payments which range from $25,000 to $100,000 for qualifying injuries, depending on severity. To date, more than 2.500 wounded servicemembers have received payments as a direct result of this legislation.

As of December 1, 2005, all servicemembers and Reservists insured under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program are also covered under the T-SGLI benefit. The coverage extends to all qualifying injuries regardless of whether injuries are incurred as a result of combat.

Under the provisions of H.R. 3200, the maximum coverage for members of the Armed Forces and veterans of the Service Members Group Life Insurance and the Veterans Group Life Insurance benefit was increased from $250,000 to $400,000.

The bill, as enacted, also requires that spouses be notified when members insured under T-SGLI elect less than maximum coverage or designate a beneficiary other than the spouse or the children or the child.

In fiscal year 2006, the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 1815, under provisions of H.R. 1815 and as a result of veterans committees oversights, the Department of Defense was directed to provide customized integrated information to survivors of those killed on active duty about their future Federal benefits through an Internet Web site.

I was amazed when we started these hearings that we were still dealing with a hodgepodge of approaches of how we dealt with the surviving spouse of a lost one.

DOD was also directed to develop a uniform policy on providing casualty assistance to survivors. I would like to especially thank Senators Warner and Levin for their cooperation on that bill.

Also under H.R. 1815, a provision was adopted to prohibit military funeral honors and burial in VA national cemeteries and in Arlington National Cemetery to any person who is convicted of a Federal or State capital murder for which a sentence of death or life in prison may be imposed

We had an example of a fellow from Maryland who had killed two elderly people and was sentenced to death, died in prison, and was buried at Arlington. This provision was adopted following our committee's oversight and hearing of that double murder that I just expressed. I will speak more to my colleagues about the status of the double murder incident in a moment.

In June of 2006 President Bush signed into law S. 1235, a bill to help severely injured servicemembers in their transition from the military to their civilian lives. It authorizes VA to make grants available--ranging from $2,000 to $14,000--to assist with housing adaptations on a family member's home in which a severely disabled veteran is living.

It allows servicemembers, who have been legally determined 100 percent disabled when they separated from the military, up to 2 years from that date to apply for premium-free Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage. Finally, it enables them to convert their coverage to Veterans' Group Life Insurance, or an individual plan or policy, during the same 2-year period.

As to H.R. 5037, undoubtedly most of my colleagues are aware of the fringe

group which has used its protected free speech rights to deliberately disrupt funerals of our military heroes. That is why the Senate voted unanimously to put reasonable restrictions on demonstrations at VA cemeteries and Arlington National Cemetery.

An amendment was put forward on the floor of the Senate balancing the rights of grieving families to a dignified funeral ceremony; the rights of private property owners who live near cemeteries to be free from overly intrusive Federal laws; and the rights of demonstrators to have their message heard. The amendment was accepted, the bill was passed, and it is now Federal law.

In addition to the bills already enacted into law, the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs have agreed on a comprehensive substitute amendment to S. 3421, which has cleared the House and awaits Senate action. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

S. 3421, the ``Veterans Benefits. Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006,'' contains provisions that would: enhance veterans' health, education, memorial affairs, and other benefit programs; improve VA's information technology infrastructure; authorize the construction of needed VA medical facilities; improve services for homeless veterans; remove the remains of a convicted double murderer from Arlington National Cemetery; and, I am proud to say, repeal an outdated and paternalistic law that limits the ability of veterans to hire an attorney to represent them during the VA claims process.

While a fuller accounting of the provisions of S. 3421 can be found in the Joint Explanatory Statement language accompanying the amendment text in the Congressional Record--and I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Explanatory Statement be printed in the Record along with the text of the substitute amendment to S. 3421,--I will make a few remarks about three provisions of note that I have championed.

Mr. President, currently, veterans and other claimants seeking veterans' benefits may not hire an attorney until the VA administrative proceedings have been completed--a process that often takes several years.

That law flows from a Civil War era policy intended to protect veterans from unscrupulous attorneys. That policy arose at a time-- unlike today--when attending law school was not required to become a lawyer and there was no effective professional oversight of lawyers.

In recent months, it has become abundantly clear that many veterans and their survivors want the option of hiring an attorney to help them navigate the increasingly complex VA system. In fact, the prohibition against veterans hiring attorneys is considered to be unfair and outdated by a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations, including veterans' organizations, veterans' advocates, judges, law professors, and bar associations.

For these reasons, I am very pleased that a compromise version of legislation I authored was accepted that would allow veterans to hire attorneys after a veteran files a Notice of Disagreement with VA's initial decision on their claim.

A provision of S. 3421 will enable the spouses of seriously wounded veterans to obtain educational assistance benefits sooner than they have ever been able to before.

The need for the educational assistance provision was brought to my attention by U.S. Army SFC Jeff Mittman, a young man who was blinded after an attack in Iraq and is being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Sergeant First Class Mittman's wife would like to begin receiving educational assistance benefits from the VA while her husband undergoes treatment in order to improve her job opportunities once he is officially discharged from service, but is now prevented from doing so by law. If enacted, S. 3421 would remove that barrier.

Finally, S. 3421 would remove the cremated remains of a convicted double murderer from Arlington National Cemetery.

In the summer of 2005, we learned that the remains of a brutal murderer--Russell Wayne Wagner--were placed in the Nation's preeminent military cemetery, Arlington National Cemetery.

I was appalled to discover that the law enacted in 1997 to deny capital offenders from burial in national cemeteries did not apply to Wagner.

This was also quickly brought to my attention by the Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski. We joined together in that effort. The answer was it couldn't happen, it couldn't be removed because of the law.

While we moved swiftly to close the loophole that permitted Wagner's burial in the first place, the question remained: Should his remains continue to be included among the scores of honored dead in Arlington? For me and Senator Mikulski, who joined me in this effort, the answer was ``no.''

That is why I am so pleased that S. 3421 would direct the Secretary of the Army to remove Wagner's remains from Arlington.

As I stated last summer, we must not dishonor the sacrifices made by those memorialized at our Nation's military cemeteries by including among them individuals who, through their own heinous acts, have grievously dishonored themselves because at another time in their life they were veterans.

S. 3421 is an impressive assortment of legislation. It contains the collective work of more than 44 Senators. I want to take some time to single out a few of them.

Senators Burr and Obama for their work on the homeless assistance provisions of the bill; Senators Hutchison, Feinstein, Graham, Landrieu, and Murray for their work on the construction provisions; Senators Thune, Salazar, and Burr for their work on the rural health components of the bill.

And lastly, the committee's ranking member, and a true friend of veterans, Senator Akaka.

I ask my colleagues for their vote. And I thank every Senator on the committee and in the Senate for their support in seeing this, and all of the other veterans' bills, through the Senate.

I also want to thank my House colleagues, in particular Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member Evans, and Acting Ranking Member Filner. We were able to come together in the spirit of compromise in the final hour on some key provisions, and it is a fitting way to end this Congress.

As we head into a new Congress, I want to extend my best wishes to my friend, and soon-to-be chairman, Senator Akaka. It has been a pleasure working with a Senator of his quality, and I pledge that as ranking member I will strive to emulate the kindness, cooperation, and ``aloha'' that he showed me during my time as chairman of this great committee.

I yield the floor.