Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to enthusiastically support the bill of my good friend and colleague Senator John McCain. Let me address one thing that was said. My good friend Senator Jack Reed said we are in this deficit problem because of the way George Bush spent money. I happened to look back at the last two Congresses. There was not an appropriation bill that Senator Reed voted against.

The President cannot spend money; only the Congress can spend money. That is one of the reasons we are here today having alternatives presented; it is because Congress is in charge of the purse. There are objections and disagreements and different ways of looking at everything. I think most Members want to look at this legislation called a ``stimulus''--I call it a ``spending'' bill--and try to get it back to something that is targeted, timely and, more important, temporary. That is what Senator McCain's substitute proposal does.

As a matter of fact, the differences we have today are over economic recovery. The question that Americans should ask is: Is economic recovery the result of how much Congress spends or is economic recovery about how targeted our spending is and how we use those dollars to leverage job creation and investments in job creation? I believe it is the latter. I believe we have to encourage investment.

Senator Thune did a great job of talking about the trillion dollar- plus on this bill--$900 billion plus in spending, at a very crucial time, plus interest, comes to about $1.2 trillion. I point out to my colleagues that several weeks ago, we appropriated $350 billion to the TARP. This week, I am convinced that this Senate and this Congress will hand to the President that $1.2 trillion spending bill. It is my understanding that appropriators plan to

come to the floor in the next couple weeks with an omnibus spending bill of a trillion dollars. It is also my understanding that the Secretary of the Treasury will suggest to the President that the administration come back to the Congress in the very near future to ask for at least a half trillion dollars in additional TARP money, meaning that over a 60-day period this Congress could spend almost $3 trillion.

Let me put that in perspective. If you extrapolate that almost $300 billion is the interest on this bill alone, that means that the commitment, the obligation, the debt to the next generation that we will do in this Congress over the next 60 days is almost a trillion dollars in interest. Ask yourself, can your children retire that debt over their lifetime, much less pay back the money we have spent?

It is clear that the McCain proposal will fail. I hate to start a debate with an admission that that is going to happen. But when one of the key elements of this bill is rejected, with only 44 members supporting it, I think the die is pretty well cast.

What was that key point of the McCain proposal? It simply said this: After two quarters of positive growth over 2 percent, adjusted for inflation against GDP, that an amazing thing would happen in Washington: we would stop spending money. If for some reason we still had money left out of the $1.2 trillion commitment, it would stop; that there is no longer a reason to fuel growth if, in fact, we have growth that is happening and that we would do a rescission on the rest of the money. In other words, we would pull back the commitment we made, and we would reserve that money for reduction of our debt.

In addition to that, he said we will automatically go in and make sure that every new program that was created, 30-plus programs, were no longer there, they would be eliminated. For the people who follow inside-the-park way we do things in Washington, we would go to the baseline of spending and we would take all of that new spending out of the baseline so we did not automatically start next year's appropriations at a higher point, reflective of what is supposed to be targeted, timely, and temporary. It did not pass.

More Members said: We understand we said we want it targeted, timely, and temporary, but we really didn't mean it on the temporary part; we want to expand permanently the size of spending for the Federal Government. When we do that in a deficit situation, we have compound interest. Just as many of us as we grew up understood and learned, compound interest was something we gained on deposits. This is compound expenses, obligations to future generations.

What Senator McCain's substitute does is it focuses how much we spend and where we spend it.

We have been criticized because Senator McCain's substitute proposal only spends a little over $400 billion. You have to ask yourself: Who came up with $900 billion? I haven't heard an economist saying: If you spend $900 billion, you will solve the economic crisis in America. This is a number that has been pulled out of the sky. It was constructed based on where people wanted to spend money.

I compliment the chairman because last night he accepted--this body accepted by voice vote an amendment in Senator McCain's substitute which jump-starts housing again, and this bill was deficient on jump- starting housing. I think this is a good amendment they accepted. It is part of the core of the McCain substitute.

Part of the core of the McCain substitute, though, is also making sure we leave money in the pockets of the American people--$275 billion that has been proven over time to stimulate growth, to go into the economy, not targeted at rich people. We have had that debate way too much. It is targeted at individuals by eliminating the payroll tax for 1 year going away. It is targeted at people at the 15-percent tax rate going to 10 and the people at the 10-percent tax rate going to 5. It is targeted at the individuals who have an income, who are likely to spend.

I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. What we have to do, in addition to stabilizing the financial markets, is get us participating in the U.S. economy again. This alternative proposal is targeted to leave that $275 billion in the pockets of the American people. It is targeted to put $50 billion into programs that help those who have been most affected by job loss, by the need to feed their families. It has targeted $32 billion to restart this housing market, and it has targeted $64 billion in a combination of infrastructure in communities across this country and our military installations and the reset of programs that are absolutely vital.

Let me end where I started by saying that the single most important thing the McCain substitute does is it has a 3-year sunset. It says that in 3 years, everything goes away. If, in fact, this bill accomplishes what its author says it will, then we will not wait 3 years, if you accept this spending proposal, because after two consecutive quarters of economic growth, everything would stop.

I believe the American people deserve sunsets such as this. They deserve triggers in bills that say once we accomplish what we set out to accomplish and we all agree we need, let's stop it there. Let's not just consider because we authorized it to be spent that we are going to continue to open the spigot and the next generation suffers. We will not be here. I don't think there is a parent in America or a grandparent in America who is not willing to make sure the next generation and the next generation and the next generation has as good an opportunity as we had.

I am going to tell you, Mr. President, over the next 60 days, we will spend, we will appropriate, we will authorize over $3 trillion. If we look at the portraits that are around the Senate and the Capitol, our forefathers would be turning in their graves today if they could. They did not even envision what a trillion dollars was, much less that Congress would talk about spending over $1 trillion in one bill or $3 trillion in 60 days, almost a trillion dollars' worth of interest obligation to the next generation. But we are doing it like routine business. We are going to rush through this in less than a week.

I remember when there was an energy bill in the Senate. We spent 3 weeks, not stalling but debating different types of solutions to the problem. That is what we are doing today, offering substitutes, offering amendments. But the die is cast. They are not going to be accepted. As Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, said, and I think her remarks are embraced over here: We won; therefore, we have a right to do it exactly like we want to do it.

It is time for bipartisanship. It is a time for compromise. Compromise is not ``take ours and not have yours heard.'' Compromise is also not ``you can offer all of yours, and we will just routinely object to them, vote them down.'' Who loses then? It is not me. It is not the minority. It is the American people. This is a debate that is worth having. It is a debate for the American people and for the next generation. So understand, if changes are not made, it is not that the minority lost, it is that the American people lost. What we are trying to do is targeted, it is temporary, and it hopefully is timely.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, we are at a point where the rubber meets the road. We are challenged daily in this institution and across the country by the American people to find solutions to real problems. In 1997, we found a problem. It was called uninsured children. In the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I was one of those who crafted the original SCHIP program. It was the right way to go at that time.

Health care has changed a lot since 1997. We have continued to reauthorize SCHIP. We have talked about expansions. As a matter of fact, we debated, over the last couple days, why an expansion of eligibility actually hurts low-income children, the ones below 300 percent of poverty. Why does a State want to increase the eligibility income of beneficiaries under SCHIP? It is because there are some kids who are hard to get to. They are hard to find to give them health care. Rather than leave anything on the table, states would like for us to make it easier by expanding the pool of eligibility so we can take higher income kids and put them in the program.

In 2008, there were 7.4 million kids enrolled in SCHIP. It is a 4- percent increase from 2007, but it is a little bit misleading because within that 7.4 million, the monthly average was 5.5 million kids enrolled in SCHIP. What that implies is there are 1.9 million kids who sort of rotate in and rotate out of SCHIP because they possibly migrate from one State to another. So they are not permanent enrollees.

Throughout these days, we have heard Members say our objective is that we want to cover as many kids as possible. Now we have Members standing and saying, as many kids as possible is not what the goal should be of the Senate. The goal should be every child under 300 percent should be covered.

Dr. Coburn did a very good job of spelling out for us that we have quite a large pool of individuals. We have 49 million kids under 300 percent of the poverty level. Of the 78 million kids in America, 22.1 million are currently under Federal programs--Medicaid and SCHIP; 8.9 million kids are uninsured.

We have a proposal in front of this body. That Baucus proposal is to raise taxes of $70 billion-plus and to cover 5.7 million of the 8.9 million uninsured. Actually, that is not the case because of the 5.7 million, 2 million are currently covered by their parents' insurance. We are actually going to increase the rolls by 3.7 million children for $70 billion-plus. We still leave quite a few kids out there without insurance, without coverage. Even though their families have too much money for Medicaid, and they are not enrolled in SCHIP.

This is the time to reform this program. This is the time to say let's design a program that catches 100 percent of the kids at 300 percent of poverty and below. This is the time to totally rethink how we deliver this care.

As a matter of fact, the proposal that Dr. Coburn has made not only can be funded without the $70 billion tax increase and cover 100 percent of the kids, but it actually saves the American taxpayers $144 billion over 5 years. There is the part you did not hear from Dr. Coburn. We actually save $144 billion over 5 years.

You see, the current Baucus proposal on the table is going to increase enrollment of uninsured children under 300 percent of poverty, and it is going to cost $74 billion. If you add that to the number of uninsured who remain in the pot, which is 2.9 million, under the way they have approached this bill, it

would cost roughly $70 billion more to cover that pool of 2.9 million. So, in fact, for my colleagues, if you want to know what we have done in this amendment, as Dr. Coburn said, we have come up with a health care proposal that covers 100 percent of the uninsured children under 300 percent of the poverty level, and in doing it, we have saved the American taxpayers $144 billion over the next 5 years if--if--the goal is to cover 100 percent of the uninsured children under 300 percent of poverty. We only save $144 billion if that is the intent to cover all.

If the intent is to cover all, why in the world would you spend $144 billion more dollars if you can do it with today's dollars?

Congress--the Senate and the House--has been deficient since the beginning of this program because we do not cover all the kids. Yet I remember that was the objective the day we wrote the bill. Let's get on a path to cover all.

We are also deficient in the fact that the way SCHIP is structured, we rely on the 60 percent of all health care providers who actually see this population. Forty percent of the health care professionals in this country restrict access to Medicaid beneficiaries or SCHIP beneficiaries. We have now limited the pool of professionals to 40 percent.

With the changes in this amendment, we now open the pool to 100 percent. We increase the choice of a child with Medicaid and SCHIP, and we have now put them in a product where 100 percent of the health care professionals, in fact, will invite them in and be their medical home or their primary doctor, their pediatrician. Without this amendment, we will continue to serve less than 100 percent of the 300 percent of poverty and below, and we also limit the number of health care professionals who are going to see these children, that generation whom we feel incredibly committed to make sure are successful, not just in life but in health.

This does not need to go on, but I do wish to make this point to my colleagues. This is not another amendment. I know we have had votes on amendments for the last 2 days, and we routinely come down here and it is pretty much a party-line vote, although I learned earlier in this debate that when one Republican votes for it out of committee, it is now bipartisan. I am not sure that is the definition President Obama had of ``bipartisanship'' when he gave a wonderful inauguration speech on these Capitol stairs. Given that one Republican did vote for the bill, it is now bipartisan.

This amendment is about the next generation. It is about the most at- risk children in this country. It is about a real option and a real choice, where that population has full coverage, sees any doctor, enters any medical delivery point in the system, and saves $144 billion over what we would have to spend under the current method. It does not eliminate SCHIP. As a matter of fact, we reauthorize SCHIP for 2 additional years while the Secretary is able to put together the architecture for this product to be in the marketplace.

This is a real opportunity for this body to change the direction and, more importantly, to fulfill the promise that is made over and over on this Senate floor, that what we are doing is to make sure every child in America has health care coverage. If we adopt this amendment, if we vote yes for Tom Coburn's amendment, we will have completed that promise we made to America's children.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, that is the definition I understand exactly. But that is not the process we completed on SCHIP or the stimulus package. My hope is the President will win at the end of the day.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

The chairman alluded to the fact that some States need more flexibility because the income in their States is higher. One of those States that is grandfathered is the State of New Jersey. It is allowed to include up to 350 percent of poverty for SCHIP participants.

Now, it is important to understand that when you increase flexibility, you decrease the likelihood of people under 200 percent of poverty being enrolled. New Jersey ranks 47th out of 50 States in the enrollment of kids 100 percent above poverty to 200 percent above poverty. Twenty-eight percent of the kids in that category in New Jersey are uninsured.

Increase flexibility, decrease the number of enrollees targeted in the 100 to 200 percent of poverty--the uninsured, at-risk, low-income children. It is very simple.

I yield.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. I do not wish to dwell on what he said, but let me make this point. He said we are not here to talk about the bigger health care piece. From the standpoint of the bill, he is exactly right. This is another attempt to grow the size of a Federal Government program to include more Americans in it without taking on the tough task of debating how we fix health care in this country; and what are the reforms that have to take place so every American has the opportunity to be insured.

Let me cite some facts about the Baucus bill. The Baucus bill spends $34 billion over 5 years. Actually, it might spend more than that based on CBO. It increases the number of enrollees in SCHIP by 5.7 million children. By the way, 2 million of those children are currently covered under their parents' insurance. Let me say that again. We are spending $34 billion over 5 years to increase enrollment in SCHIP by 5.7 million children, and 2 million of them are already covered under their parents' health care insurance.

When our benefit gets bigger, when it becomes even more inclusive, what happens? We say to the American people: Why should you pay for it? We have a government program to cover your children instead.

There is an alternative, and it has already been offered in one of the first three amendments. It is the McConnell amendment, Kids First. It spends $19.3 billion over the same 5 years. It enrolls 3.1 million new kids. For $19.3 billion, we get 3.1 million kids, and for $34 billion over 5 years, we only get 3.7 million new kids when you consider the 2 million that are already insured. The American taxpayers ought to ask us: For the additional 600,000 kids who are uninsured today whom we would be pulling in under the Baucus bill, what does it cost them per child? The answer is $4,000.

Having just had a son who reached an age in college that he can no longer be under my insurance, I was amazed when I tried to get this college senior insurance. Naturally, I turned to the Federal Government I work for and said: Surely you have a plan already in place for my child and the other 2 million Government workers who might fall into this classification.

They said: We certainly do. We have negotiated with the same insurance company for the same coverage that your son was under when he was covered by you.

What is the annual cost of that? I said to the Office of Personnel Management.

They said: $5,400 a year. Mr. President, $5,400 a year. The Government negotiated for my 22-year-old, healthy-as-a-bull son to be covered under the same insurance plan he had before.

What did I do? I picked up the phone. I called the university. I said: Surely you have plans for kids whose insurance runs out. They said: We certainly do. We have it with this company, it is this plan. It was the exact same coverage I had as a Federal employee. I asked the magical question I would ask anybody: How much does it cost per year? The answer: $1,500. One phone call and I saved $3,000 for a 22-year- old, healthy-as-a-bull college senior because I no longer let the Federal Government be a part of his health care decisions. I took him out. For $1,500, my son was covered. For every year under that 22 years of age, an amazing thing happens. Children get cheaper to cover. They get cheaper to cover because they are less likely to have serious illnesses.

The most likely period of illness for somebody under 18 is what Dr. Coburn referred to, the first year of life. That is why we make sure that in that first year of life, every kid gets the exams they need to make sure they are on the path to not only a successful life but a healthy life.

One should not be amazed to find out that the average cost for insuring someone under 18 years old is about $1,200 a year for full health coverage, compared to $4,000 under the Baucus bill. But what are we debating here today? This was the part, from my colleague's earlier statement: If we allow discussions and debates to bog us down, then this is a huge mistake. That is what he said.

We are having a discussion and a debate about what the American taxpayers are willing to pay for a benefit. We all agree the SCHIP program should be expanded. But some of us believe we ought to have the bigger debate now about how we fix the American health care system. How do we walk away from the Senate Chamber confident that every American has the opportunity to have a health insurance policy?

But, no, we have decided not to do that. We have decided to take one little piece--kids. Why? Because every American wants to do something for children. I want to do it. But I am also inclined to do the right thing for kids, not just anything for kids.

It was said earlier that this was a bipartisan bill. Let me point out for my colleagues and for those paying attention to this debate, when this legislation passed the Finance Committee, it got one Republican vote. I am not sure that is the bipartisan measurement tool President Obama said he needed when he was sworn in as our 44th President. As a matter of fact, he is aggressively coming to the Hill in about 1 hour to meet with Republicans to talk about the stimulus package because he does not want a stimulus package to just barely pass. He wants overwhelming bipartisan support. But bipartisan support was just defined here as when one Republican votes with every Democrat to pass a bill.

An amazing thing, if you look back to 2007--excuse me, 2008, I think it was--when a bipartisan SCHIP bill did come out of the Finance Committee. The ranking member voted for it, and the second highest ranking Republican in seniority voted for it. They came to the floor and spoke on it. Chairman Baucus--it was his bill. There was bipartisan support. So, what happened this year? Why didn't we start with the bipartisan bill we had last year? They took everything Senator Grassley, everything Senator Hatch incorporated into the bipartisan bill, and they ran right over them. They threw it out. If you see something on the floor in the Senate today, it is road kill. That is where Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch were thrown aside. Not in an effort to reach bipartisanship, but in an effort to be prescriptive as to exactly what SCHIP said and who it covered.

Make no mistake about it, when Senator Chuck Grassley comes to the floor--and every Senator in this Chamber understands it--and says that when you strike the 5-year waiting period before legal immigrants can get benefits, you have now opened the insurance program to new legal immigrants to America who have a responsibility, which is accepted by their sponsor, to make sure they do not accept Federal Government benefits. In other words, they are not at the taxpayer trough for at least 5 years.

What did we do with that important legal safeguard in this bill? We discarded it. We said: No, we will let you at the taxpayer trough. We will let you there on day one, even though when you came into the country you and your sponsor said: I will not do that for 5 years.

Not only did we do that, we actually threw away the verification that they are legal. We no longer under SCHIP will require a photo ID of somebody who walks in to be enrolled in SCHIP. All we say is you have to have a name and you have to have a Social Security number, one of which can be made up, the other of which can be bought. It is an amazing thing. We see it every day.

We have had every sort of immigration debate on this Senate floor. We are building a wall along the border today because there is an immigration problem. Yet we have now said: You know what, let's forget about that part about sponsorship when you come to this country legally. Let's forget about the obligation that your sponsor had to make sure that for 5 years they were there for the financial assistance you

needed. And, oh, by the way, in case there are folks out there who might not be here legally, let's not require them to show a photo ID to make sure the person who is in line matches the name they gave us and matches the Social Security number that was provided.

What we have done is we have opened a tremendous loophole. I am all for making sure, as I said earlier and Dr. Coburn has said, we want to make sure every American has health insurance. I am not trying to cut anybody out.

But if we want to target those people who are here legally for under 5 years, or those people, for heavens' sake, who are here illegally, then we should integrate them into a health care system that works.

Today, cost shifting alone in the American health care system costs $200 billion a year. If we are talking about having a debate on health care, let's talk about how to eliminate that $200 billion that doesn't go to prevention, doesn't go to wellness, doesn't go to insurance coverage. It goes to a big black hole that doesn't deliver health care to any American.

As I stated, this is not a debate about health care reform. It is a debate about growing a Federal Government program.

The SCHIP statistics: 7.4 million children were enrolled in SCHIP in 2008, a 4-percent increase over 2007. Yet, if you look at the devil in the details, there were only 5.5 million enrolled on average per month; 7.4 million total enrolled, 5.5 million on average throughout the year. And 5.4 million additional people are eligible for Medicaid or for SCHIP in this country and are not enrolled. Exactly what Dr. Coburn said earlier to my good friend from Pennsylvania. We have 5.4 million children who, today, are eligible for Medicaid or for SCHIP but are not enrolled.

I remember when Dr. Coburn and I held up the President's PEPFAR bill, when we were talking about an increase in funding from $15 billion to $50 billion for AIDS treatment in Africa. There was only one thing, when they increased substantially this amount of money for the program, they also dropped the requirement that 50 percent of the funds actually be used to treat people living with AIDS or HIV disease. They said we would leave that up to the NGOs implementing the program.

In other words, the NGOs said: To get any further into the population of people who have HIV and AIDS, that is going to be really tough. Rather than attempt to do something tough, we were going to lift the requirement that 50 percent of the money had to be spent on medical treatment.

So, what are we doing here? Now we have gotten to the SCHIP population that is tough--5.4 million kids who are eligible for Medicaid, eligible for SCHIP but are not enrolled. What are we saying? OK, States, we know it is tough to get to that 5.4 million kids so we are going to allow you to expand the pool you are able to solicit for this program. We are going to increase the percentage of Federal poverty that you are going to be able to include in this program--and I might say this to my good friend Senator Ben Cardin, who served in the House with me, not only did I vote for this program, I helped craft the first SCHIP bill. I remember the laborious days when we sat trying to figure out exactly how to structure it, a program that was designed for States to run, for us to target those kids in America whose families did not have enough income to afford health care for them but had too much income to be eligible for Medicaid. It was targeted specifically at the families who were over 100 percent of the Federal poverty level but under 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.

That may be Greek to a lot of folks, so let me point out: At 200 percent of the Federal poverty level for a family of four, a person earns $44,000. Now we are up to 300 percent of poverty in SCHIP and 300 percent of poverty is $66,000 a year. But there is an exception, because New Jersey currently has a waiver to go up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level in SCHIP. That puts them at $77,175, for a family of four.

What about the Baucus bill? The Baucus bill also allows, for New Jersey and New York, the ability to go up to 400 percent of poverty-- $88,200 a year for a family of four.

For God's sake, do not lecture me on what SCHIP was designed to try to do in this country. We are leaving 5.4 million kids behind today who currently are eligible, and then you tell me there is some rational reason why we should roll over and pass something without a debate that increases the eligibility from where I had it targeted at $44,000 a year and raise it up to $88,200 a year. Why do others think we need to increase the eligibility? It is simple. Because it is too hard to reach the 5.4 million children who are below 200 percent or 300 percent of poverty who are eligible but not enrolled today in this country.

On another topic, the Medicaid FMAP in this country ranges from 50 percent to 75.9 percent with a ceiling of 83 percent, meaning that is how much the Federal Government gives to the States for our portion of their Medicaid payment. SCHIP offers a higher Federal match than Medicaid. The SCHIP match ranges from 65 to 83.1 with a ceiling of 85 percent.

If you listened to me list the numbers, I think you can figure out what is going on, on the Senate floor today. Why do some want to increase the eligibility limits? It is because, for some States under Medicaid, they get a 50-percent match, but under SCHIP they get a 65- percent match. So, you want to expand SCHIP eligibility because then the Federal Government is picking up 15 percent more of the tab. Why wouldn't some want the parameters of SCHIP to increase if we are letting the State off the hook for 15 percent of the cost they are obligated to cover?

As a matter of fact, in full disclosure, let me say that in North Carolina our SCHIP match rate is 74.8 percent, and our North Carolina Medicaid match rate is 64.6 percent.

I think it is important also to remind my colleagues that in the Baucus bill, even though it limits the SCHIP match rate to children and families below 300 percent of poverty, it still does allow Medicaid to, in fact, wrap around that. I call it the Medicaid sandwich. Medicaid covers people up to 100 percent of poverty, SCHIP fills in right here, and then Medicaid goes back right on top.

I am not sure there is a rational, sane person in the world who would design the health care system we currently have. Yet we are on the Senate floor today, and we will be here tomorrow and the next day and we will probably be here the entire week, and we are here trying to rationalize why this program needs to be reauthorized in its current form, why we should drop things that have been bipartisan in the past so we can increase the enrollment size to include somebody here legally but under sponsorship, or people here illegally but who want to be covered. We are here to debate whether the eligibility parameters should be increased.

I return to my colleague from Pennsylvania, to another one of his quotes. He said ``all this stuff doesn't rise to the level.'' Well, I believe it does. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But I believe this stuff does rise to the level of Senate debate. I believe it rises to the level of public disclosure.

The American people look at SCHIP. And I might note, Mr. President, we had this debate last year as we got ready for reauthorization, when all of a sudden SCHIP dropped the ``S.'' I noticed, with the first two speakers on the majority side today, that everything refers to the CHIP program. I assume I have not picked up the provision in this bill yet that eliminates this as a ``State'' program, and now it is going to be only the ``Children's Health Insurance Program,'' run by the Federal Government, administered by the Federal Government, and the States will not have anything to do with it.

I haven't found that provision yet but, then again, we have not had the bill long enough to read all the nuances of it. We have had it long enough to read the budget aspects of it, and I think Dr. Coburn alluded to that very effectively.

CBO says the Baucus bill spends, in fiscal year 2012, $14.98 billion. Rather than continue that spending level for SCHIP into 2013, the bill somehow drastically reduces the allocation to only $5.7 billion in 2013.

Let me cover that again. In 2012, we allocate $14.98 billion for SCHIP, almost $15 billion. But under the bill's

structure in 2013, we allocate only $5.7 billion for the health care of that same population. Somehow we are either going to lose two-thirds of the kids under the program or we are miraculously going to find another $9 billion.

You know, numbers like $9 billion appear frequently up here. It is called debt. It is called debt on our children and our grandchildren. We make it up, we print it, we fund it, it goes into place.

I might add, I am not sure I am the only one who caught onto this. I think Senator Baucus caught onto it too when he wrote the bill because in 2013 he also has a one-time charge of $11.4 billion, not counting the 2013 allocation. I was worried that I might not have read the numbers right the first time until I looked at 2013 and I found the one-time charge.

He just doesn't want that amount included as a score under the 5-year timeline. Why? Because as Dr. Coburn said, we are being less than honest with the American taxpayer. We are suggesting that this program can be run for X and we know it is going to cost Y. How in the world can we take something up as serious as children's health insurance and lie about the numbers? If we lie about the numbers, how do we expect the American people to believe us when we say we are only covering 300 percent of poverty, or we are only covering kids?

On that point: We are only covering kids? I know it will be shocking to some--probably not to all--to find out that we currently cover 334,616 adults under the SCHIP program: 334,616 adults under the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Why? Because we allowed States to increase the eligibility under waivers because it was too tough to find the 5.4 million kids who were eligible under the original structure of the SCHIP bill that we wrote and passed in 1997.

In 1996, we conceived a plan, passed in 1997. It went for 10 years-- $40 billion. It went for 10 years, $4 billion a year. Before we had ever gotten to the end of the 10 years we already changed the parameters, already changed the eligibility, we already put more money into it. We knew 10 years ago, now 11, soon to be 12 years ago, we needed to fix our health care system. We didn't do it under the Clinton administration, we didn't do it under the Bush administration, we didn't do it in the 104th Congress, 105th, 106th, 107th, 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th--well, maybe in the 111th Congress. We are in the 111th now.

And regarding the assertion that we should not have this health care debate? We should have this debate. We should fix it. For once, the Senate ought to step up and say let's quit continuing to do something that we know is broken and let's fix it. Let's not just increase eligibility of a broken program, let's fix the program. Let's not just talk about supplying an insurance product to a certain segment of America. Let's do it for everybody. Let's have an honest debate and discuss whether every American ought to be insured and let's have a debate as to how we get there.

Over the next 2 days we are going to talk extensively about this program. Today a Grassley amendment has been offered--it strikes the ability for legal immigrants to be brought into the program during those first 5 years. And a Hatch amendment which is very clear. If a State wants to bring in other people into the SCHIP program, then they have to verify that they have reached a threshold where 95 percent of the eligible kids are enrolled in the program. Mr. President, 95 percent of all the eligible kids would have to be in the program in order for this to be expanded--I think this is reasonable. If you are concerned with covering children, then I think this is a slam dunk amendment, and I might add it was part of the bipartisan bill last year.

The last amendment is Kids First, offered by Leader McConnell. I might reiterate one more time, it spends $19.3 billion over 5 years.

It increases the enrollment in SCHIP by 3.1 million kids, as opposed to the Baucus bill that spends $34 billion over 5 years that increases enrollment by 5.7 million but does it by enrolling 2 million kids who are currently under their parents' insurance. That means our additional costs, the cost to the American taxpayer, is $4,000 per child for the additional 600,000 kids who would have health insurance for the first time under the Baucus bill because they are currently uninsured.

But we have options. We will have more amendments. We will have more debates. I look forward to working with my colleagues on what I think is a very serious piece of legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wanted to pick up where I was before lunch. I am glad to see my good friend from Ohio. We were having conversations before lunch on this bill. Clearly, it is an important piece of legislation.

As Dr. Coburn and I said before lunch, I think every Member of the Senate, I think every Member of Congress, and probably everybody in the country believes it is important that we cover children; that the prevention and wellness aspects of having coverage means we have a healthier community; that we take those who, by the way, are historically more healthy, younger folks, and we give them the assurances of check-ups and the ability to visit a doctor so that we minimize anything that can happen to them. In 1996 and 1997, the Senator from Ohio and I were both on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We were involved in crafting the original legislation. I remember it today as well as I do then. The legislation was targeted at a specific group of our country's children: those over 100 percent of poverty whose families made too much for Medicaid but those with not enough income between their parents to be able to afford health care at the time.

My gracious, health care has done nothing but get more expensive since 1997. We appropriated and authorized $40 million for a 4-year program. The target--I can't remember what the target was for the number of kids--but today, at 100 percent of poverty for a family of four, they would have an income of $22,000. At $22,000 they apply for Medicaid, regardless of what State they live in, and health care is provided under Medicaid for that family.

As Dr. Coburn pointed out, I think rather clearly, for Medicaid and SCHIP today, we have probably eliminated access to about 40 percent of health professionals because they choose not to

participate in the programs. Why? It is because the reimbursements are so pitiful in those two programs, regardless of the State. Doctors have chosen to opt out of providing that care and focus just on the Medicare and private market or just on the private market.

So just the creation of Medicaid and SCHIP means we have eliminated some choices for these people where this coverage is their only option, it is their safety net. Now, if I had my druthers, I would rather be here debating overall health care reform because I believe every American should have the ability to be insured.

I am not sure I would have much disagreement in Congress or in America on that. We will have a big disagreement on how we get there, but we can get there. Were we to have that debate today, we would not be here talking about the expansion of one program that hits a small group of Americans and is targeted to put them in a one-size-fits-all program that only 40 percent of the health care professionals even participate in.

Now, having said all of that, SCHIP is up for reauthorization. We are now 10 years down the road, and we are talking about, How do you change this bill to apply what we have learned? Can we reach new efficiencies in cost? Can we cover more people? If so, how? Which States have done well? Which states can we learn from? Which have done poorly? Which states should we work with in the legislation to try to prod?

Well, we find in this legislation that in 10 years, we have moved from 200 percent of poverty to 300 percent of poverty. I do not have any big disagreement with that, with the rise in health care costs. Three hundred percent of poverty for a family of four is $66,000 a year.

So under this program--SCHIP currently, not under the reauthorization bill--if a child lives in a household that has an income of $66,000, above $22,000, they are eligible in several states for SCHIP today.

So what is our experience so far? As we get ready for this reauthorization, we have 7.4 million children enrolled in SCHIP in 2008. But the average monthly enrollment for 2008 was 5.5 million, meaning that somewhere, somehow we have had almost 2 million drop out. They have moved to a different State. The income of their family changed. They are no longer eligible. So 5.5 million covered children today seem to be sort of the fixed point.

Well, how many are eligible today but not covered? I think my colleagues would be amazed to find out it is 5.4 million. We are covering 5.5 million, but we are not covering 5.4 million who are eligible under today's guidelines.

So in typical Washington response, what do we do? We come out with a reauthorization that expands the eligibility. Already we have in place a waiver where New Jersey can currently go up to 350 percent of poverty. Well, what is that? That is $77,175. Now in the reauthorization bill, we are going to grandfather the 350 percent, and we are going to go up to 400 percent for New York. What is 400 percent? Well, that is $88,200. How do those 5.4 million who were eligible before get enrolled? Well, the answer is, they are not. This is what Dr. Coburn was talking about. How about the kids nobody is going out to enroll? Do auto enrollment. It is easy.

But that is not what this bill is attempting to do. This bill is attempting to increase the eligibility to get a bigger slice of America eligible for Government programs so that at some point the number of folks who are on Government programs--Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, VA, the list goes on--is well over 50 percent of America, and then the die is cast. We go to a single-payer system. The Government runs it, the Government tells us how much we get, the Government tells us where we go, and the American taxpayer pays for everybody.

Now, here is the decision the Senate has--the House has already voted this bill out. We have a decision whether we are going to stand up for those 5.4 million. Those are the tough ones. Those are the ones who did not walk into the door and raise their hand when their parents were told they were eligible and say: I want to enroll. I would like health care. I would like prevention. I would like a primary care doctor. I would like a medical home. No, they are the 5.4 million children who are out there to whom no State is reaching out. They are just letting them fall by the wayside. Rather than focus on the 5.4 million, we are focusing on how we increase eligibility, how we change the income parameters.

Let me point out New Jersey, which is grandfathered to 350 percent of poverty under this bill, ranked 47th in the country at enrolling children who are at 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty. Let me say that again. A State that we have allowed to be grandfathered in at 350 percent of poverty ranks 47th out of 50 in the United States at enrolling kids between 100 and 200 percent of poverty.

As a matter of fact, 28 percent of their children are uninsured in that 100 to 200 percent of poverty. Yet once again we are going to grandfather them and allow this incredible expansion to continue. So where is their focus? Let's go after the easy ones. Let's go after the ones in families who are easier to find and who are easy to enroll.

Well, why does that happen? Let me point out to my colleagues, Medicaid gets a matching rate from the federal government, depending upon which State you are from, and that rate is from 50 percent to 75.9, with a ceiling of 83. So as the State makes a Medicaid payment of $1, depending upon what State you are from, the Federal Government reimburses anywhere from 50 cents to 83 cents.

But if you are enrolled in SCHIP, the range goes from 65 to 85. So if you are on the bottom, if you are a State on the bottom, why would you lobby for expanded eligibility? It is because if you are on the bottom, you are going to have an increase in the Federal share of what you pay out from 50 to 65 cents. It is 15 cents of every dollar. You are crazy, if you are a State, for not lobbying for this because you are going to spread the cost over the entire taxpayer base. It makes a lot of sense if your focus is not on 5.4 million children and how they get covered and how they get health care.

If you are only focused on how you get a bigger piece of the Federal pie, if you are only focused on how you get a bigger share of space at the trough, then this makes a tremendous amount of sense. But from the standpoint of developing health care policy, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I don't take my position just looking at one section of the bill. Dr. Coburn pointed out, as I did earlier, that the financing of this bill is suspect. In fiscal year 2012, which is the last of 5 years, we allocate $14.98 billion to fund the program, almost $15 billion. Yet in 2013, the bill reduces the allocation to $5.7 billion. How do you have a health care program for children, with all these people enrolled, that is sucking up $15 billion a year, and all of a sudden, the next year it drops to $5.7 billion? The answer is, you don't. We all know it. The reality is, you have to go to the next 5-year period to find the answer. The answer is, starting in year 6, out of the next 5-year budget, we do a one-time payment of $11.7 billion on top of what it costs us to run the program for 2013.

So what does that mean? Frankly, it means the accounting methods used in Washington are not accounting methods any family in America could use because their creditors would walk in the door and shut them down. Yet we get up here every day and claim we do things just like people at home. In fact, we know when it comes to budgets, there is no American family who can get away with what we get away with, especially when it is this obvious. One year it costs us $15 billion. The next year it costs $5.7 billion. There are only two ways you accomplish that. You either reduce enrollment drastically or you magically come up with the money and you stick it in and say: Oops, we didn't understand that was going to happen.

We understood it was going to happen. It is done to fit the parameters, to get around pay-go rules so you can actually take this money and stick it right onto the deficit and the debt of the country. In other words, we are going to provide our children health care with one hand, and we are going to rob their financial future with the other, all at the same time. It is miraculous that we would even attempt to do this. At least we could ask for honesty and transparency in how we are funding this program.

It is important that we sort of recap. What is SCHIP? I think a lot of people

who might not have been in Congress very long, certainly weren't here in 1996 and 1997 when we passed it, people across the country might be saying: I have never heard of this program. Again, we saw the need in 1996 to create an insurance product for children's health, for those people who financially didn't qualify for Medicaid and didn't make enough to purchase insurance on the open market. SCHIP was created with the vision of trying to take kids from 100 percent of poverty to 200 percent of poverty and make them eligible for a program where 100 percent of them would have health care. Nationally, the parameters grew from 100 percent to 300 percent, and we still haven't met the original 1996 mission of covering all the kids. Because with 5.5 million people covered today, average monthly number, we still have 5.4 million over here who are eligible and don't have insurance. Clearly, we have a tremendous amount of work to do to get the SCHIP program to fulfill its original mission.

Let me go specifically to the bill before us. CBO estimates the bill will increase outlays by $32.3 billion above the baseline over 5 years and $65 billion over 10. The cost is offset by a tobacco tax. I am from North Carolina. I can get up and wail about how this is unfair. It is not the first time Congress has done it. It is the most regressive tax there is. In essence, we are taking a group who financially are challenged and, according to every analysis I have looked at, the people who are going to be most taxed by a tobacco increase are those people in the lower socioeconomic levels. So, in essence, we are not spreading this across taxpayers. We are asking the parents of these children to pay for the expansion in eligibility because we are going to tax them for every cigarette they buy and consume. We are going to hope that they quit. When they quit, I am not sure how we are going to fund the program except probably do it the same way we are doing it in the year 2013. We will come up with the money in some way and some fashion.

It is important we realize today we have something we call a Medicaid sandwich. Medicaid starts here; SCHIP goes here; Medicaid wraps on the top. It is hard to believe we could have something designed that is so complicated for the States, that Medicaid applies here to some; SCHIP applies here to others; and Medicaid applies on top of that to an even larger group. If it seems confusing, it is. If it is this confusing, one has to ask: Why don't we change it? Why don't we fix it? Yet as I continue to go through the Baucus bill, what I find is that we are making it more complicated. We are designing it in a fashion that aggressively goes after an increase in enrollment but does not go after the 5.4 million children who currently today are unenrolled in the program but are certainly eligible. As a matter of fact, the Baucus bill spends $34 billion over 5 years. It targets 5.7 million new children. I might add, 2 million of those children today are currently covered under their parents' insurance. So we have actually got a net pickup of 3.7 million kids who were uninsured. That is $34 billion.

There is an alternative plan. It is called the McConnell substitute. It is called Kids First. It uses $19.3 billion over 5 years to enroll 3.1 million kids who are uninsured today. So what do we get with the $34 billion investment that we are not getting with a $19.3 billion investment? The answer is quite simple: 600,000 uninsured kids who are enrolled under the Baucus bill. When you do the simple math on that, you find out you are paying $4,000 per enrollee under the Baucus bill.

Now, I don't expect everybody to associate with this, but last year I had a son who was a senior in college. Because we have these funky Government rules that say no matter where you are in your education process, when you become 22, you are no longer eligible to be under Government insurance for your family--it doesn't apply just to Members of the Senate or to Congress; it applies to every Federal employee--I was forced, as a parent, to go out and go through the thought process of getting my son insurance. Sure, he is 22 years old. He is healthy as a bull. There is no reason I should suspect he is going to get sick. But what if something happens to him.

So I immediately did what every good Federal employee would do. I called the correct office up here, and I said: This has to be something you have run into. Have you got some type of gap insurance I can turn to and I can purchase for that 22-year-old healthy son? They said: Certainly, Senator. We have negotiated with the same company, the same plan he was under, and he can go on that tomorrow. I said: How much is that? They said: $5,400 a year, for a 22-year-old, healthy-as-a-bull senior in college.

I did probably what every parent would do. I called the college and said: Have you got a plan? Here is the situation. They said: Absolutely. We have negotiated with the same company, with the same plan he was under as a child of a Federal employee. I said: What is the premium? They said: $1,500 a year.

Now, that lesson I actually learned when I became a Member of Congress. When I became a Member of Congress, I chose the same insurance plan I was under in Winston-Salem, NC, working for a company of 50 employees, the same exact plan paying the same 25 percent, and the only difference was my health insurance cost went up $100. Why? Because a company of 50 employees negotiated a better plan than the U.S. Government on behalf of 2 million employees. But it had been 14 years. I had forgotten that. I relearned it firsthand though with my son, when all of a sudden I realized he got a plan for $1,500 that the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill had negotiated, and the Federal Government had negotiated the same plan at $5,400. No wonder parents are confused. No wonder most Americans are confused. What a screwed up market this is. How unbelievably complicated is it for an individual to try to go out and access insurance, and at what point do you actually know that you have found a value?

Let me try to bring some relevance to this story. For that 22-year- old, healthy-as-a-bull senior in Chapel Hill, his health care plan was $1,500 a year. For all these 600,000 kids we are adding to SCHIP, we are spending $4,000 a year to insure them. The average cost per policy for somebody under 18 in America today is about $1,132. Yet under the Baucus bill we are going to invest $4,000 per child, per those 600,000 children, to make sure they are covered--not a wise investment. But considering my experience with the Federal Government, I can understand why, for some people here, that makes absolutely perfect sense.

Let's assume for a minute somebody is going to say my numbers are wrong. I am sure they will before the debate is over. Let's assume for a minute we are trying to figure out the number of increased enrollees--and I am not talking about the ones who had their own insurance and we just shifted them over to government insurance--what are we paying for them? We are paying about $2,200. They are still paying $700 more a year to insure every child 18 and under than I paid in premiums to cover my 22-year-old, healthy-as-a-bull senior in college. So we are overpaying at least by $700. At most, we are overpaying by almost $2,500. Somewhere in that range, I would hope the American people would say: Hey, let's stop for a second. Let's call time out. Let's go back and get Congress to re-look at this program because this doesn't make a lot of sense.

I am not getting into any of the aspects that have already been addressed which deal with the loopholes that were created. I actually sat on the floor and heard somebody say this was a bipartisan bill. If you count one Republican vote out of the Finance Committee, then you are right, it is bipartisan. But I am not sure that is President Obama's interpretation of what bipartisanship is. He came to the Hill. He had lunch with us today because he is trying to get more Republicans to support a stimulus package because he doesn't want to just win it, and he doesn't want to win it by one vote. He wants the American people to understand that there is confidence up here in the legislation that is passed. He probably should have talked about this bill. It is going to be bipartisan, not by many votes.

If that is the type of bipartisanship we want, then it is going to be a long couple of years.

My hope is we can actually get something done. There are so many areas I

could talk about on this bill, but it would keep me here forever, and I see my good friend, Senator Whitehouse, is in the Chamber.

Let me end with this. I am sure I will come back. What I want Members to search their souls and ask is, Is it really the Federal Government's responsibility and, more importantly, the taxpayers' responsibility that a family making $88,000 be included in a plan that is designed and was originally designed to take care of kids between 100 and 200 percent of poverty? Do we feel bad that today 5.4 million children who are eligible at 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty are not enrolled in the program?

This is not the first time I have had a test like this. My own President, last year, proposed we increase spending for HIV/AIDS patients in Africa from $15 billion to $50 billion, and to many people's amazement, Tom Coburn and I supported the President. Then all of a sudden they made a change in the program. The program had always said 50 percent of the money had to go to the treatment of HIV and AIDS patients, meaning they actually had to deliver medicine to them.

Well, when all of a sudden the countries that got these Federal grants to carry out these programs in Africa looked at the program, they said: My gosh, for us to get from committing $7.5 billion all the way up to $22.5 billion in delivering medicines to people who have HIV or AIDS, that is going to be tough. We are going to have to work to find these people. It is going to be dangerous in some cases for us to get drugs out.

What did the White House do? They dropped the requirement in total. They did not require one dime of that $50 billion to actually go to the delivery of drugs to HIV and AIDS patients. So what did we do? We held up the bill. We were taking flak from our own President because other people wrote a bill that was structured poorly. It actually did not accomplish what we set out to have with PEPFAR originally.

At the end of the day, they put back in the requirement of 50 percent, and today, for the multiple countries this applies to, we have a commitment that $22.5 billion is going to go to actually treat individuals who have HIV and AIDS--our original intent of the program. We just expanded it.

Now, we were not going to get there just by saying it is difficult, therefore we do not think we should do that. And we are not going to cover these 5.4 million kids who are eligible but not enrolled if we say: Do you know what. This is hard. And since it is hard, why don't you change the program so the eligibility is wider so we can get some of the kids who are out here in different income groups who are easier for us to enroll than for us to go and find the 5.4 million who are so hard to find.

Well, I am going to say to my colleagues, just like I said to my President: No. That is not what we intended to do. We put this program together to make sure the most at-risk kids in this country had health coverage, so they had a medical home. To suggest we are now going to change the parameters of this and allow a larger income pool to come in because it is hard to reach out and find these 5.4 million people, no; it is not going to happen. It may happen, but it should be as difficult at happening as it possibly can.

I look forward to the debate we are going to have. It is my hope we will have an opportunity to actually look at honest budget numbers that share with the American people exactly what this costs, that we can look at the eligibility requirements with predictability, understand who is going to have an opportunity to be enrolled, and, hopefully, at the end of the day, when a bill passes--whether we vote for it or not-- that we can all look at it and say: There is a real chance that 100 percent of the kids at 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty have a real opportunity to be enrolled in this program. I fear without changes to this legislation that will not happen. We will not have fulfilled what we set out to do.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Would any of those 3.3 million children have been in 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty?

Let me suggest to the Senator--and I will not ask him to yield much longer--there was the same expansion of eligibility in last year's bill, so the likelihood is any increase in enrollment would have been spread across not just the 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty, but all the way up to the 400 percent of poverty.

Mr. President, I would be happy to disclose to my colleague that I voted against the bill, for the same reasons that without changes I will oppose it this year because the eligibility requirement is being expanded.

As I said, and I thought fairly clearly, when you expand eligibility, you take the pressure off of making sure the enrollees come from the most at risk. It is my hope we can modify this bill. I am not embarrassed to be on the Senate floor and talk about the aspects of this legislation that I am unhappy with. But certainly I can count, and I know the majority can move this bill at any point they feel comfortable, and I am sure they will.

At the end of the day, it is my hope we will cover as many of the originally targeted children in that 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Kay Yow, Head Coach of the North Carolina State University Women's Basketball Team.

I join North Carolina State University and the entire women's basketball community in mourning her passing.

My heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to Kay's family--her sisters, Susan and Deborah and her brother Ronnie--and to the North Carolina State University community that adored her.

Coach Yow had countless accomplishments on and off the basketball court that I can't even begin to do justice to as I stand here today.

After 38 years of coaching, she had amounted many achievements that everyone in the women's basketball family will admire for generations to come.

A native of Gibsonville, NC, Coach Yow started the North Carolina State University Women's basketball team in 1975 and was the school's only head coach in its women's basketball team's 34 year history.

Compiling over 700 victories during the course of her career with a record of 737 wins and only 344 losses over 38 years, she led her teams to 20 NCAA tournaments, 11 of which made it to the ``Sweet 16,'' and in 1998 she led the Lady Wolfpack to ``Final Four.''

Coach Yow also captured 5 Atlantic Coast Conference, ACC, regular season championships and 4 ACC Tournament titles.

Off the court, Coach Yow was a friend, a mentor, and a leader. She was very active in the Kay Yow/Women's Basketball Coaches Association Cancer Fund, in partnership with the V Foundation, committed to finding cures for cancer.

She also was heavily involved in the creation of the ``Hoops 4 Hope,'' a basketball game played to raise awareness and help find a cure for breast cancer.

The North Carolina State University student body embraced Coach Yow, and her colleagues recognized her instrumental contributions to the sport in which she became and remains an icon.

Coach Yow will be deeply missed, but the inspiration and the memories that she created will live forever.

Again, I send my sincerest condolences to Coach Yow's family, her athletes, her fans, and her friends.

Mr. President, today, January 22, 2009, marks the 36th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Today, concerned Americans, including many North Carolinians, are gathering on the National Mall to March for Life, and I would like to take this opportunity to welcome them to Washington, DC.

On January 17, 2009, in anticipation of today's events, North Carolinians gathered for their annual Rally and March for Life in Raleigh.

I congratulate them on their successful event, and I would like to thank them for their efforts to promote a culture of life in America.

In recent years we have made great strides in protecting the unborn through various measures, such as passage of the partial birth abortion ban, Lacey and Connor's Law, and tax incentives to enable more families to adopt.

These achievements are a testament to the advocates who work tirelessly every day to remind us of the value of life.

With these achievements and others, it is my sincere hope that my colleagues in the Senate will continue to work together to protect our children.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the heroic efforts of the pilots, crew, passengers, emergency responders, and volunteer organizations that led to the extraordinary outcome of U.S. Airways flight 1549, which was bound for Charlotte, NC, on January 15, 2009.

U.S. Airways flight 1549 departed New York's LaGuardia Airport on the afternoon of January 15 with 150 passengers and 5 crew, including 2 pilots and 3 flight attendants, aboard. Charlotte was the final destination of 104 of the passengers, many of whom are my constituents.

Within minutes of take-off, the aircraft experienced engine trouble forcing the pilot, Captain Chesley B. ``Sully'' Sullenberger, to perform an emergency landing on the Hudson River.

I understand that a water landing of this sort is rare and technically challenging, making it extremely dangerous for all aboard. But Captain Sullenberger executed the difficult landing expertly. His skill and decisiveness has been heralded with saving the lives of all on board.

As passengers emerged from the plane onto emergency life rafts and the wings of the still buoyant aircraft, boats were on the scene to assist with the rescue in minutes. Vessels were dispatched from the New York police and fire departments, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the New York Waterway, which reportedly sent all 14 of its boats to the scene.

Without the immediate assistance of these boats, I am certain the passengers and crew on board would not have fared as well as they did, given the extreme temperatures in New York City on the day of the incident. All participating rescue parties are to be commended for their swift and professional response.

In fact, the tales of heroism emerging from this event are numerous. For example, I was moved by the story of Josh Peltz, a Charlotte resident, husband, and father of two. Flying home

to Charlotte from a business meeting, Josh was seated in the emergency row's window seat. Not only was Josh integral in opening the emergency hatch after impact, but he was also helpful in reassuring passengers and assisting others, including a mother and her 9-month-old baby, up the ladder and onto the awaiting ferry. And as rescuers assisted passengers, I understand that Captain Sullenberger continued to demonstrate true heroism as he refused to deplane until all others onboard had been safely evacuated.

I again commend all who contributed to making this disastrous event a true miracle, including the first responders; volunteer organizations, such as the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army; and most of all the crew and passengers of 1549. The acts of heroism and the stories of selflessness that have emerged from this event are truly inspiring.

Mr. President, I recognize the 62nd North Carolina Azalea Festival, NCAF, which will be held from April 1-5, 2009, in the Greater Wilmington area.

The Azalea Festival is a showcase for Wilmington's rich array of artwork, gardens, history and a testimony to the rich heritage of coastal Carolina. This year's celebration marks the 50th anniversary of the Azalea's Festival's name being changed from the Wilmington Azalea Festival to the North Carolina Azalea Festival.

The NCAF is Wilmington's annual community celebration and the largest festival of its kind in the State. This festival encourages volunteerism and civic participation as it contributes to the region's economy and promotes the unique qualities of Wilmington's river-to-the- sea community.

The festival's concerts, fairs and special events are viewed by more than 1 million people each year, in person and through media coverage. More than 200,000 people are estimated to attend the annual 2-day street fair, while more than 100,000 gather to watch the festival parade.

It takes an extensive volunteer network to run the NCAF. More than 1,000 volunteers are needed to stage over 125 events ranging from concerts to art shows, a street fair with interactive displays, home and garden tours, a parade, special exhibits, a circus, and a variety of other entertainment and events.

The NCAF generates an additional approximate $5 million to the area's economy and the Southeast Tourism Society selected the NCAF as one of its top 20 events for the second year in a row.

I am pleased to recognize the unique cultural and historical contributions of the 62nd annual North Carolina Azalea Festival.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the financial crisis threatening our Nation. Like my fellow North Carolinians, I am very concerned and angry about the circumstances that have brought our country's economy to the brink and that now necessitate the Congress to act. While pointing fingers is easy, the grave fact remains that we are facing one of the most significant economic challenges we have ever confronted--one that threatens our very way of life.

I have heard from thousands of hard-working citizens who have spent their entire lives acting responsibly, only buying a home that they could afford, working hard to put food on the table, saving money to send their kids to college, and only borrowing responsibly when necessary. They are angry, and they have every right to be. I am angry, too. It is wrong and it is disgraceful that responsible, hard working people of this country are now being asked to step in to fix a mess caused by the irresponsible and greedy behavior of others. Much of what got us to this point was not only reckless behavior on Wall Street but also the fact that many people took out risky mortgages that they simply could never afford. A boom of easy money has led to a bust, which has now resulted in a collapse of housing markets all over the country and a potential collapse of our system of credit--the very lifeblood of our economy.

Let me be clear--this crisis threatens the financial security of each and every one of us--whether you have a retirement savings account or a pension, own a home, want to buy a home or a car, or have a savings account for your child's education or want to borrow for college. The current financial instability, if left unchecked, threatens the ability of small businesses and family farms to meet their payrolls, purchase fuel, and pay for their day-to-day business operations as their credit lines dry up and disappear. While many believe that this action is a bailout of Wall Street, the fundamental reason the Senate is compelled to act today is to stop an economic collapse of Main Street. Every day that goes by, our financial system grinds closer to a complete halt. We must act to get to the roots of this financial turmoil and get our financial system moving again.

As the health of our financial system has rapidly deteriorated, many banks have restricted or stopped lending altogether. Families, businesses, and local governments have found it harder to borrow money, money that is needed just to keep daily operations going. Without access to credit, businesses can't borrow money to buy equipment needed to produce their products. Cities and towns can't borrow money for water and sewer systems, roads, or other critically important community projects.

Over the past 2 weeks, I have heard from small businesses, cities, and towns in North Carolina that have been stranded by this economic crisis--businesses that can't get their standard lines of credit to operate and whose loans have been called. I have heard from counties throughout my State recounting how this national financial crisis is making it impossible to borrow from banks to pay for their schools and other critical projects. These businesses and local governments aren't folks with poor credit ratings or folks who have been late on or missed their loan payments. These are folks with strong credit histories who are the innocent victims currently caught up by our current financial crisis, and these are the honest, hard-working folks this legislation before us is meant to help by getting credit, the necessary lifeblood of our economy, flowing again.

Whether we like it or not, we now face a financial crisis that is unprecedented in scope, with repercussions so far-reaching that no American would be immune. So we now face a choice. We could do nothing and just let our entire country--which depends on credit to function every day--seize up and come to a halt. We could do that, but history has painfully shown us what happens when you do nothing and credit dries up. America felt this during the Great Depression. The result was a 40-percent foreclosure rate, massive unemployment, and years of economic hardship for millions.

Like many of my Republican colleagues in Congress, I cannot stand the notion of supporting something that violates my fundamental belief in free enterprise, the freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. That we have to consider this legislation at all marks a sad day in our Nation's history. But as a public servant, and as an elected representative of the Great State of North Carolina, I do not believe I can sit by and let this country fall into the worst economic state that it has ever faced. The risks of just rolling the dice, doing nothing, and letting the chips fall where they may are, in my opinion, too high. A working credit system is core to a strong economy. The bipartisan bill before us is our best chance, and perhaps our last chance, to avert this looming crisis.

While the need for this legislation is regrettable, I am heartened that the plan before the Senate includes very important protections for taxpayers, limits on executive compensation for Wall Street, and strong measures to ensure proper oversight and accountability. Under the legislation:

Those companies that sell their bad assets to the Federal

Government must also provide warrants--a type of ownership

stake--so that taxpayers will benefit from any future

profits. If the program ends up making money for taxpayers,

that money must go toward paying down the national debt. If

the program loses money for taxpayers, then the President

will be required to submit a proposal to Congress for

recouping those losses from the financial institutions.

Corporate executives will have their golden parachutes

clipped and any unearned corporate bonuses must be returned.

In addition, companies will pay taxes on executive pay and,

in many cases, must limit executive pay.

The FBI has already begun preliminary investigations into

criminal wrongdoing by the management of 26 financial

institutions, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and

Lehman Brothers. The FBI is also pursuing over 1,400 mortgage

fraud cases nationwide. This legislation will beef up that

enforcement.

Savings deposits will be insured up to $250,000 by the

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, up from the

$100,000 limit currently in place. This additional protection

is very important for retirees, near retirees, and small

businesses so that they know their savings and basic business

operation accounts are indeed safe.

An oversight board will be established to monitor the

Treasury's activities. In addition, a new inspector general

will be appointed to protect taxpayers against fraud, waste,

and abuse.

Rather than giving the Treasury all the funds at once, the

legislation gives the Treasury $250 billion immediately and

then requires the President to certify that additional funds

are needed. Congress will have the power to deny those funds.

After we weather this crisis, and I am confident we can, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to improve the regulatory structures that govern our financial system. As this crisis makes abundantly clear, many of our regulations

to deal with financial markets are outdated. It is also important that we prosecute any corporation or individual who broke the law and contributed to this mess to the full extent possible. We must never find ourselves in this situation again and never again place American taxpayers and their livelihoods at risk.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise today to applaud the passage of S. 3023, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008. This veterans' benefits omnibus bill, which is now on its way to the President, will make a wide assortment of improvements to benefits programs for our Nation's veterans and their families.

I want to commend the chairman of the Senate Committee of Veterans' Affairs, Senator Akaka, and our colleagues on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer, for their efforts in crafting this compromise legislation. It reflects the bipartisan work of dozens of Members of both the House and Senate. The result of our work is an omnibus veterans' benefits bill with over 60 provisions that will allow more veterans to access VA-backed home loans, will expand access to independent living services for severely injured veterans, and will address VA's disability claims backlog, among many other valuable provisions.

I am particularly pleased that the bill includes an education benefit that draws its inspiration from a North Carolinian. Sarah Wade, spouse of Ted Wade, an Iraq War veteran who lost his right arm and has battled the effects of severe traumatic brain injury after an explosive detonated under his Humvee in 2004, has been at her husband's side as a primary caregiver from the beginning. She quit her job to take care of Ted and has doggedly ensured that he receives the highest quality of care. It is likely that her intensive involvement in Ted's ongoing recovery will last for several more years.

Sarah's effort on behalf of her husband leaves little time for herself. Sarah would one day like to go to school. Although VA provides an educational assistance benefit for the spouses of totally disabled veterans and servicemembers, the law requires that the benefit be used within 10 years of the date the veteran receives a total disability rating. For a spouse like Sarah Wade, there is next to no time to take advantage of this benefit within that timeframe. The recovery period for a TBI-afflicted veteran--the very period that Ted needs Sarah the most--simply precludes her from pursuing that option.

In recognition of hundreds of spouses like Sarah, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 would extend from 10 to 20 years the period within which certain spouses of severely disabled veterans could use their education benefits. That longer window will allow Sarah and others to focus on their first priority, the care of their injured spouses, while giving them some flexibility to pursue their educational goals later on. This provision is simply the right thing to do for those who have sacrificed so much.

Another provision I would like to mention would require human resource specialists in the Federal executive branch to receive training on the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, or USERRA. This law provides a wide range of employment protections to veterans, future and current members of the Armed Forces, and Guard and Reserve members. For returning servicemembers, it requires that they be given their jobs back when they return home. It also requires that they receive all the benefits and seniority that would have accumulated during their absence.

While every employer should strive to meet or exceed the requirements of USERRA, Congress has stressed that ``the Federal Government should be a model employer'' when it comes to complying with this law. In my view, this means the Federal Government should make sure that not a single returning servicemember is denied proper reinstatement to a Federal job. But unfortunately, this is not happening yet. The Federal Government often violates this law because Federal hiring managers simply don't understand what it requires or how to apply it.

That is why I championed a provision to require the head of each Federal executive agency to provide training for their human resources personnel on the rights, benefits, and obligations under USERRA. My hope is that this training will help prevent future violations of USERRA before they ever occur, so our returning servicemembers will not experience delays or frustrations in resuming their civilian jobs. In short, this provision will move the Federal Government toward becoming the ``model employer'' that it should be.

This bill also provides a number of enhancements to VA's Home Loan Guaranty Program, which are particularly important in light of the ongoing home loan crisis. For starters, the bill temporarily increases the maximum amount of VA's home loan guaranty from just over $104,000 to more than $182,000, allowing veterans purchasing homes in higher cost areas to benefit from a VA guaranty. Another key provision will significantly increase the maximum amount of VA's guaranty for refinance loans. This means veterans with large, high-interest conventional loans may be able to switch to lower interest rate VA- backed loans, helping them keep their homes by lowering their monthly payments.

Also, the bill would decrease from 10 percent to 0 percent the amount of equity required in order to refinance from a conventional loan to a VA-backed loan. So, even veterans who have seen declining home values may

be able to benefit from these VA-guaranteed refinance loans. Collectively, these changes will help more of our Nation's veterans purchase their own homes or keep their existing homes.

Other very important provisions in this bill will expand access to VA's independent living services program. This program helps veterans with severe service-related disabilities improve their ability to function more independently in their homes and communities and, in some cases, it gives them hope for a productive life. These services are more important than ever before, as veterans return home from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom with catastrophic injuries and as the overall veteran population ages. But VA is not authorized to allow more than 2,500 disabled veterans to enter this program each year, which may prevent or delay veterans from receiving these crucial services.

Also, VA is generally precluded from providing more than 24 months of independent living services to a disabled veteran. This may not be long enough for a veteran suffering severe disabilities, such as traumatic brain injuries, which can have lengthy, complex, and unpredictable recovery periods. So, this bill will increase from 2,500 to 2,600 the number of veterans who may enter the independent living services program each year and will allow any severely disabled veteran of OIF/ OEF to receive more than 24 months of services. These changes will help ensure that veterans who have suffered devastating injuries in service to our Nation will have access to the services they need to lead fulfilling, independent lives.

This bill also includes a provision that would require VA to provide Congress with a plan for updating its disability rating schedule and a timeline for when changes will be made. This rating schedule--which is the cornerstone of the entire VA claims processing system--was developed in the early 1900s, and about 35 percent of it has not been updated since 1945. It is riddled with outdated criteria that do not track with modern medicine, and it does not adequately compensate young, severely disabled veterans; veterans with mental disabilities; and veterans who are unemployable.

To address this situation, VA conducted studies on the appropriate level of disability compensation to account for any loss of earning capacity and any loss of quality of life caused by service-related disabilities. To make sure these studies don't get put on a shelf to collect dust--as has happened in the past--this bill would require VA to submit to Congress a report outlining the findings and recommendations of those studies, a list of the actions that VA plans to take in response, and a timeline for when VA plans to take those actions. My hope is that this will finally prompt the type of complete update that is necessary to ensure the VA rating schedule is meeting the needs of our injured veterans.

This bill would also help ensure that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims consistently has the judicial resources it needs to provide timely decisions to veterans and their families. In recent years, the court has struggled in the face of a massive caseload, with record levels of incoming cases and record levels of pending appeals.

To help the court deal with this workload, this bill will temporarily increase the size of the court from seven judges to nine judges. This temporary increase will provide the court with more judicial resources in the near term. At the same time, it will allow Congress to gather more information about the court's workload before deciding whether a permanent expansion of the court is the best way to make sure veterans receive timely decisions in the future. To that end, the bill would require the court to provide annual reports to Congress with details about who is actually doing the work, what type of work they are doing, and where there are bottlenecks.

This temporary expansion to nine judges will also help with an ongoing problem--the prospect of having multiple judicial vacancies when judges retire. When the court was created in 1988, the terms of the judges were not staggered, so six judges retired between 2000 and 2005, with four retirements in a single 11-month period. This led to a serious disruption in service to veterans. To try to avoid a similar disruption in service when the existing judges retire, the terms of the judges appointed as a result of this expansion would extend well beyond the retirement dates of all of the existing judges.

In addition to all these good provisions, the bill includes some commonsense reforms to the court's pay structure and the rules on recalling retired judges. It would remove the current cap on the number of days a retired judge may voluntarily serve in recall status each year. It would create a three-tier payment structure for the judges, which reserves the highest pay for judges actually serving either as active judges or as recalled retired judges. It also would exempt retired judges from being involuntarily recalled after they have served at least 5 aggregate years as a recalled judge. These reforms should create meaningful incentives for retired judges to come back to work for longer or more frequent periods of time. With their experience and expertise, the increased involvement of retired judges will be of significant value to the veterans seeking justice from the court.

Mr. President, these are only a few of the over 60 items in this comprehensive veterans' benefits bill. I am confident this bill will improve the lives of veterans and their families, even if only in small ways. I applaud the passage of this bill, and, again, I thank my colleagues, Chairman Akaka, Chairman Filner, and Ranking Member Buyer.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on legislation that will make a tremendous difference in the lives of those who have served our country in uniform. S. 2162, the Veterans' Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008, reflects a compromise reached between the House and Senate on critical health care legislation. It is comprised of over 40 provisions, authored by both my House and Senate colleagues. The bill passed the House on Wednesday night and is now pending before the Senate awaiting final passage to be sent to the President.

S. 2162 includes needed improvements to health care services provided to veterans who suffer from both mental illness and substance use disorder. It ensures that veterans seeking treatment for both conditions will receive quality, coordinated treatment. It would expand the availability of treatment the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, offers for substance abuse, including detoxification and stabilization services. It will strengthen VA's reimbursement of community hospitals for emergency care that they provide to enrolled veterans; direct VA to develop a comprehensive policy on the management of pain experienced by veterans; direct the establishment of epilepsy centers of excellence; and make it easier for veterans with HIV/AIDS to be diagnosed and treated.

Let me spend a few minutes discussing a few key provisions that I am particularly proud to support. First, legislation I authored is included in this bill that would authorize VA to make grants to private and public groups so that they may provide supportive services to keep low-income veterans, who are at risk of becoming homeless, in permanent housing. We have all heard the old saying that ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' This legislation will help those on the verge of becoming homeless by

getting them help from the community. It is much easier to prevent homelessness than it is to bring someone out of it. The supportive services that will be provided under the legislation include greater access to housing assistance, physical and mental health services, health insurance, and vocational and financial counseling. North Carolina is home to over 770,000 veterans, and the VA estimates that over 40,000 North Carolina veterans live in poverty. We must do all we can to ensure that the men and women who've served our Nation in the military do not suffer the indignity of going to bed at night without a roof over their heads.

Second, to help service-disabled veterans cope with the high cost of gasoline, S. 2162 would codify VA's new travel reimbursement rate for veterans who drive to their medical appointments at VA, and would index that rate so that future increases are automatic. The rate was increased in January from 11 cents to 28.5 cents a mile by VA Secretary James Peake. In addition, this bill will reverse the increase in the deductible that was made in January.

Third, the legislation directs a 3-year pilot program on the provision of contract care to veterans residing in highly rural areas where no VA facilities exist. It makes no sense for veterans in rural areas to travel hundreds of miles for their care when they could easily seek care at their own local community health care facilities. Not only will they be more likely to seek needed preventive care, they'll also avoid the high cost of gas to get to a VA appointment. I am pleased about the potential for this pilot program and look forward to it being tested in rural States like North Carolina.

And fourth, I am pleased the legislation includes an expansion of a concept that was tested and that proved successful at the Asheville VA Medical Center. The concept was to consolidate VA's capability to bill and collect from private insurance companies into one site rather than retain that capability at multiple sites. The employees at the Asheville VA Consolidated Patient Accounting Center have cultivated their expertise, and I am pleased to say that the pilot has been a success, generating millions of dollars in additional revenue. The legislation would expand on that concept by directing VA to open seven other centers around the country within the next 5 years. I am excited at the prospect of enhancing VA's revenue collection so that additional dollars can be invested in the health care delivery of our veterans.

These are just a few of the good provisions of this legislation. For my colleagues interested in a fuller accounting of the bill's provisions I would refer them to the Joint Explanatory Statement that will be made part of the Record.

Before I conclude, I would like to personally thank the chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Akaka, for his cooperation with me on this bill. The chairman has no equal when it comes to handling negotiations with integrity and fairness. I would also like to thank the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Chairman Bob Filner, and ranking member Steve Buyer. Finally, I would like to thank all of the staff members of the Veterans' Committees who worked on this bill, as well as the hard-working staff of the Senate and House Legislative Counsel's office who performed the technical drafting.

This is a good bill. I am proud of the work the House and Senate have done on it. And I ask my colleagues for their support.

Reserving the right to object, I ask my distinguished friend, the chairman, a question. It is my understanding that included in the fiscal year 2009 VA appropriations conference agreement is language denying the use of appropriated dollars putting into effect a repeal of the Hartness v. Nicholson decision. That is an agreement that has already been made.

As the chairman knows, this is the offset that is used in S. 1315 in order to fund all the entitlement spending in the bill for Filipino veterans. My question to him is, what is the point in us going to conference on a bill if the only available offsets have been pulled off the table from the standpoint of us using them in S. 1315?

Continuing my reservation of objection, it seems to me that any conference wouldn't move because it would not meet pay-go. The pay- go compliance doesn't exist. It doesn't make sense to proceed to a conference. The chairman and I had a lengthy debate as it related to this benefit. It disturbs me that we are on the floor of the Senate once again talking about the benefit at a time when we are talking about a financial crisis. It is also my understanding that the House continuing resolution will have $200 million that goes to the benefits of Filipino veterans with money that has been pulled from somewhere yet unknown.

So with all the respect that I have for the chairman, I object at this time

to moving to conference for the simple reason that this issue will be resolved a different way, but, more importantly, pertinent to S. 1315 the mechanism is already in place that takes away the funds that are used to fund this expansion in S. 1315.

Mr. President, I thank my friend, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Let me add for purposes of my colleagues that all the benefits incorporated in S. 1315 that do not have mandatory spending implications have been negotiated between the House and the Senate and are part of another benefits package that I hope will move through the Congress. If there were a conference on S. 1315, the conference would be about only mandatory spending provisions, including mandatory spending for Filipino veterans. The chairman and I have debated this in public, and we are on two different ends. We have done that with civility and I have tried to do it and he has tried to do it with passion and with facts.

At the end of the day, I will lose. There will be a special pension that is created out of the continuing resolution. It will be funded with money that is pulled out of the sky, which we do regularly in Washington.

The House has spoken about the Hartness decision and the fact that they did not want to use that money. I think my chairman will get the benefit he is looking for in the continuing resolution. But for the purposes of those things that affect our veterans that do not require an offset, we did not wait to see the outcome of this bill. We have sat down and negotiated with the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Republican and Democrat. We have put those additional benefits for our veterans into a benefits package that I feel certain will pass by unanimous consent.

So there is still a disagreement the chairman and I have relative to this new special pension. But at the end of the day, there will be one, assuming there is a continuing resolution, that is passed. It will not be funded out of the Hartness, which is the preference of the House. As a matter of fact, it will not be funded at all. We will pull it out of where we typically pull money, and that is the pockets of future generations of American people.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise today to express my support for S. 3023, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008. This veterans' benefits omnibus bill will make a wide assortment of improvements to benefits programs for veterans.

I commend Chairman Akaka for his efforts in crafting this committee bill which reflects the bipartisan work of almost every member of our committee and over 30 other Senators. The result of our work is a bill with 35 provisions touching on education, vocational rehabilitation, employment, housing, compensation, insurance, memorial affairs, and other issues.

Among many other valuable provisions, this bill includes an education benefit that draws its inspiration from a North Carolinian who has become one of the foremost advocates of the needs of severely injured servicemen and women and their families. Sarah Wade, spouse of Ted Wade, an Iraq war veteran who lost his right arm and has battled the effects of severe traumatic brain injury after an explosive detonated under his Humvee in 2004, has

been at her husband's side as a primary caregiver from the beginning. She quit her job to take care of Ted and has doggedly ensured that he receives the highest quality of care. It is likely that her intensive involvement in Ted's ongoing recovery will last for several more years.

Sarah's effort on behalf of her husband leaves little time for herself. Sarah would one day like to go to school. Although VA provides an educational assistance benefit for the spouses of totally disabled veterans and servicemembers, the law requires that the benefit be used within 10 years of the date the veteran receives a total disability rating. For a spouse like Sarah Wade, there is next to no time to take advantage of this benefit within that timeframe. The recovery period for a TBI-afflicted veteran--the very period that Ted needs Sarah the most--simply precludes her from pursuing that option.

In recognition of hundreds of spouses like Sarah, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 would extend from 10 to 20 years the period within which certain spouses of severely disabled veterans could use their education benefits. That longer window will allow Sarah and others to focus on their first priority, the care of their injured spouses, while giving them some flexibility to pursue their educational goals later on. This provision is simply the right thing to do.

Another provision that I would like to discuss is one that would require human resource specialists in the Federal executive branch to receive training on the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act or USERRA. This law provides a wide range of employment protections to veterans, future and current members of the Armed Forces, and Guard and Reserve members.

More than 60 years ago Congress recognized that those who serve our country in a time of need should be entitled to resume their civilian jobs when they return home. After Congress passed the first law providing reemployment rights to servicemen and women in 1940, President Roosevelt said these rights were part of ``the special benefits which are due to the members of our armed forces--for they `have been compelled to make greater economic sacrifice and every other kind of sacrifice than the rest of us.' ''

As we all know, the sacrifices by this generation of servicemen and women are just as profound. In North Carolina alone, we have over 1,000 members of the Guard and Reserves currently deployed, and more than 45,000 members of the Guard and Reserves have deployed since the beginning of the War on Terror. Many left behind not only family and friends, but valued civilian careers.

For them, the modern reemployment law, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, requires that they be given their jobs back when they return home. It also requires that they receive all the benefits and seniority that would have accumulated during their absence.

While every employer should strive to meet or exceed the requirements of USERRA, Congress has stressed that ``the Federal Government should be a model employer'' when it comes to complying with this law. In my view, this means the Federal Government should make sure that not a single returning servicemember is denied proper reinstatement to a Federal job. But unfortunately, this is not happening yet.

At a hearing last year, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs learned that the Federal executive branch continues to violate this law. Worse, these violations are often the result of lack of understanding or knowledge about what the law requires. In fact, the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training of the U.S. Department of Labor testified at our hearing that ``about half' of Federal USERRA cases occur because ``the Federal hiring manager just doesn't understand the law or the . . . regulations that spell out how to implement the law.''

Based on that, it seems clear that we need to do more to prevent these USERRA violations from occurring in the first place. We owe nothing less to those who have served and sacrificed so much for our nation. That is why I have championed this provision to require the head of each Federal executive agency to provide training for their human resources personnel on the rights, benefits, and obligations under USERRA. I am very pleased that this provision was included in the omnibus bill and hope it will soon become law.

The Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 also includes a provision that would require VA to provide Congress with a plan for updating its disability rating schedule and a timeline for when changes will be made. This rating schedule--which is the cornerstone of the entire VA claims processing system--was developed in the early 1900s and about 35 percent of it has not been updated since 1945. It is riddled with outdated criteria that do not track with modern medicine. Take for example traumatic arthritis. The rating schedule requires a veteran to show proof of this condition through x-ray evidence. But doctors today would generally diagnose the condition using more modern technology, like an MRI.

Even worse, experts have been telling us the rating schedule is not adequate for rating conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, which are afflicting so many of our veterans from the War on Terror. Also, experts have told us that the schedule does not adequately compensate young, severely disabled veterans; veterans with mental disabilities; and veterans who are unemployable.

To address this situation, VA has been conducting studies on the appropriate level of disability compensation to account for any loss of earning capacity and any loss of qualify of life caused by service- related disabilities. To make sure these studies don't get put on a shelf to collect dust--as has happened in the past--this bill would require VA to submit to Congress a report outlining the findings and recommendations of those studies, a list of the actions that VA plans to take in response, and a timeline for when VA plans to take those actions. My hope is that this will finally prompt the type of complete update that the VA rating schedule has needed for so long.

These are only a few of the 35 items in this bill. I am confident that each of the bill's provisions will improve the lives of and veterans, even if only in a small way. My hope is that these provisions, and others, will be passed by both Houses before Congress leaves for the year. I ask my colleagues for their support as Chairman Akaka and I work to make sure that happens.

Mr. President, in the years since the War on Terror began, we have seen the creation of new Wounded Warrior Battalions and Warrior Transition Battalions in the Marines and the Army. These units were built from the ground up with one purpose in mind: to ensure that seriously wounded service members receive the medical care and benefits that they have earned. The service personnel who command and administer these units are some of the most competent and dedicated professionals in our armed forces, and they deserve our praise.

These professionals have done much to improve the quality of care that is given to our Nation's wounded service members, but many of the young men and women who find themselves assigned to a Wounded Warrior Battalion still face a tough journey on their road to recovery. Thankfully, the challenges that these men and women face rarely go unnoticed in their communities. Over the past several years we have heard countless stories of private citizens, church congregations and other community groups stepping forward to donate their time, money and other charitable gifts to our wounded service personnel. It is not uncommon to hear about donations of $10,000 or more being offered to help provide additional resources to help our wounded recover.

Unfortunately, the military's gift-acceptance rules have not been updated

to take into account the generosity of the American people. For example, if a North Carolinian wished to provide a gift of just over $12,000 to the Wounded Warrior Battalion at Camp Lejeune, the acceptance paperwork for this donation would spend months working its way through a complicated bureaucracy before finally arriving on the desk of the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Our taxpayers and our wounded veterans are not being served very well when gifts of such a small dollar amount must be approved at the very highest levels of command.

That is why I am introducing the Friends of Wounded Warriors Act. This legislation will streamline the gift-acceptance process by empowering the commanders of Wounded Warrior Battalions and similar units with the authority to accept charitable gifts of up to $100,000 for the benefit of the members of their unit. This will enable these commanders to cut through the red tape that is currently the cause of needless delay in getting extra resources to our wounded service men and women. I hope you will join me in making a commitment to ensure that out-dated processes for accepting gifts do not stand in the way of the generosity of concerned citizens and communities seeking to contribute to the care of our wounded and ill service members.