Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce a resolution honoring the last surviving member of a heroic group, the American World War I veterans. When the U.S. entered the First World War in 1917, 4.7 million Americans donned a military uniform and fought with the Allies struggling in an imperialistic battle of trench warfare. Now, 90 years after America's entry into the war, only one veteran remains.

Corporal Frank Woodruff Buckles, born in 1901, was sent to England and France during the First World War after exaggerating his age on Army paperwork. Eager to join the action, Buckles trained in the ambulance services and acted as a driver, remaining

after the armistice to escort prisoners of war back to Germany.

Mr. Buckles now stands as the last representation of the Americans that served in the Great War. Though now distanced by the following economic depression, subsequent World War and more recent conflicts, World War I still remains a critical part of our history, symbolizing the emergence of our country as a superpower and demonstrating the willingness and selflessness of those who serve in our military. These men, 90 years later, still deserve the recognition and admiration of a grateful nation.

In honor of Frank Buckles and the millions of veterans he stands for, I am introducing a resolution authorizing Mr. Buckles to lie in honor in the rotunda of the Capitol upon his passing so that citizens may pay tribute to the last member of this faithful group of Americans. After a period of repose, Mr. Buckles will receive final burial at the Arlington National Cemetery, a privilege offered earlier this year. I introduce this resolution now, so that Mr. Buckles will be aware of the respect we wish to pay to him and his fellow veterans.

We should not allow this generation to fade from our society without showing our appreciation of their service. As Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and on behalf of Senator Byrd, I ask my colleagues to join us in extending this honor to Mr. Buckles.

Mr. President, the extension of the Lacey Act within this legislation to cover imported timber and wood products sends a strong signal that the U.S. Congress is serious about supporting the President's Initiative Against Illegal Logging.

The practice of illegal logging--both in the United States and abroad--is a deplorable act that poses environment threats as well as threats to legitimate businesses that operate within the rule of law.

It is crucial, that as this legislation is implemented, a clear distinction be drawn between ``innocent'' owners in the supply chain who in good faith trade in wood products that they believe to be legally harvested abroad, and those who knowingly traffic in illegal material.

It is the concern of Congress that this line be clearly drawn when prosecutions occur under this act.

Therefore, I support the provision included in this act that places the burden of proof in civil forfeiture cases on the government, as provided by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act.

Madam President, I also would request to be notified at the end of 5 minutes.

To my colleagues: What we have today is a choice between something and nothing. I am not sure that is fair for our veterans. I am not sure it is fair for the American people. Procedurally, what the leadership has decided to do is to give us one choice. When you have one choice, it is not a choice, it is a mandate. The choice they have given us today as Republicans, quite honestly, and as a Senate, is either support what they have prescribed to us or vote against it.

The President has already said: I am going to veto this bill because, from a policy standpoint, it does not embrace what is in the best long- term interest of this country and of our security. I think the American people understand that.

Procedurally, the only tool we have is to say we are not going to vote for it or we are going to stand with the President and uphold his veto and bring the majority back to the table to present a process that allows us to debate the differences between the two competing views. I believe it is worth it when we talk about the education of our veterans.

I believe there are parts of the Webb bill that are very well done, and there are parts of the Graham bill that are extremely beneficial to our soldiers. We will never get that opportunity unless enough people in this body are willing to stand up and say this process absolutely stinks and we are not going to stand for it.

The politics of it Senator Graham pointed out very well. There are some who believe the politics of the next election trump whether this bill is right or whether the process is fair. I don't believe politics should play a part

in this. I only wish those who have expressed such concern about this education benefit would help me fix K-through-12 education, where last year 70 percent of the high school students in this country graduated on time, and 30 percent of our kids do not have the tools to be asked to interview for a job. But we are more passionate about making sure we don't even create a choice on education for our veterans. They have no voice in this. This dictates what their benefit is going to be in the future. I think we have a right to come down and debate the merits of two proposals but not under the structure we have been given today.

The politics of this have gotten ugly. This week an ad was run that showed a veteran who had been injured in battle, a service-connected injury, and it said unless you support the Webb bill, there is no education benefit for this injured vet. Well, let me say today that is a lie. It is factually challenged. Any servicemember who has a service- connected injury has 100 percent coverage for their education benefit today without us doing one thing. It is called the Vocational Rehabilitation Program within the Veterans Administration. It covers their tuition, public and private, Harvard or North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It doesn't matter if it is a State or private school. It covers their room, their board, and their tuition. It will even pay for somebody to work with them on their resume enhancements, on interview techniques.

Every person with a service-connected disability is covered under vocational rehab. To suggest in an ad that they are left behind if the Webb bill is not passed is absolutely the most disingenuous thing I have ever seen.

From a policy standpoint, do our veterans deserve the ability to determine whether the GI benefit they have qualified for is, in fact, transferable to a child? Well, what we are saying today is no. No, you don't have a right to do that. That is our benefit. We dictate in legislation how you use it. We are not going to have a debate on whether transferability, whether a servicemember who qualifies for an education benefit should have the right. Their decision.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Should it be their decision to decide whether a spouse or family member, who has sacrificed so much, is going to be the recipient of a benefit or whether they are going to let it expire because they have the education they need? Well, not having the debate, we are not going to have an option to sell to our colleagues, to sell to veterans, to sell to the American people why veterans deserve more than what the Webb bill offers. We have only valued it on dollars, not on benefit.

From a policy standpoint, this creates a tremendous inequity between States because the benefit is actually determined by where a veteran actually chooses to go to school, not by where they live or where they came from.

It is not equal for every veteran. Some will get more, some will get less, and the unintended consequences are that States will look at that subsidized higher education today and say: Why should we subsidize it in the future, we get cheated when the Government pays us.

We know who will pay for that: All the kids who go to school. All the kids in the future who are not connected to the military, when they go in to make their tuition payment, are going to be the ones who pay the brunt of this situation.

There is only one way to stop this, and that is to make sure we uphold the President's veto. We are not going to defeat the legislation to move forward, but we have to uphold the President's veto if, in fact, we want to bring this legislation back to the Senate floor, have a real debate about the differences in the legislation, a real debate about what is important to our veterans, a real debate on what affects retention, a real debate on what provides the security we need in this country in an all-volunteer Army.

I am convinced that our colleagues understand the importance procedurally of making sure this comes back to the Senate in a fashion that we can actually have a real debate about creating a choice between something and something versus the setup today, which is something and nothing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the last 8 weeks, a group of Republican Senators, led by Senator Vitter, have come to the floor to talk about health care. Thus far Senators Vitter, Thune, Isakson, and DeMint have spoken about health care particularly the choice we are facing this November in electing our next President. I don't think there has ever been such a clear difference in opinions between parties on an issue that issue is health care.

One side would like the Government to run health care. The other side would like to give individuals and families the resources to access their own health care that they can control and take with them from job to job. In a nutshell--big government v. individual and family choice.

This week I am responsible for talking about the most tangible area we see this dichotomy--Medicare. Under Medicare, beneficiaries either have fee-for-service or Medicare Advantage. The Government sets prices and makes coverage decisions under fee-for-service. Multiple private sector companies offer comprehensive coverage under Medicare Advantage. But the best example of individual choice and private sector competition is seen under Medicare's drug benefit--Part D. Let me first talk about Medicare Advantage.

In 2008, Medicare Advantage plans are offering an average of approximately $1,100 in additional annual value to enrollees in terms of cost savings and added benefits. Some examples of extra benefits available through Medicare Advantage plans are; No. 1, coordination of care; No. 2, special needs services; No. 3, predictability in out-of- pocket costs; No. 4, reduced cost-sharing for Medicare covered services; and No. 5, vision and dental benefits.

Competition in the Medicare Advantage Program has created significant value for beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage enrollees typically benefit from reduced cost-sharing relative to FFS Medicare. All regional PPO enrollees have the protection of a required catastrophic spending cap and a combined Part A and B deductible. Sixty-seven percent of plans have coverage for eye glasses. Eighty-three percent have coverage for routine eye exams. Eighty-six percent cover additional inpatient acute care stay days. Ninety percent waive the 3-day hospital stay requirement for skilled nursing facility care.

Many Medicare Advantage plan enrollees also receive basic Part D prescription drug coverage at a lower cost than stand-alone Part D plans can provide. Enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans that include Part D coverage save money on drug coverage in two ways: No. 1, Medicare Advantage plan drug premiums for basic coverage in 2008 were, on average, about $6 less than average Part D premiums for basic coverage; and No. 2, the Medicare Advantage payment structure allows Medicare Advantage with Part D to use rebates to further reduce Part D premiums. On average, Part D premium savings from rebates was more than $16 per month in 2008. In 2007 it was reported that 99 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have access to Medicare Advantage plans with zero added premiums, while 86 percent have access to plans that would cover prescription drugs with a zero premium through Medicare Advantage.

Some say Medicare Advantage is not needed because Medicare meets all the needs of the beneficiaries, but if this was true, millions of seniors would not purchase supplemental Medigap coverage to add benefits and pick up some costs. If Medicare Advantage plans were no longer available to those currently enrolled, 39 percent of the beneficiaries would go without supplementary coverage because they could not afford it. According to the NAACP, Medicare Advantage plans have been able to provide low income beneficiaries more comprehensive benefits and lower cost-sharing than if they just had Medicare alone.

Medicare Advantage enrollees report on their experience in Medicare Advantage plans through the Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Survey, CAHPS. Scores from CAHPS are consistently high. Eighty-six percent of respondents give their plan a rating of 7 or higher, on a scale of 10. Ninety percent of respondents indicated that they usually or always received needed care. And 88 percent of respondents indicated that they usually or always received care quickly.

As I said earlier, the greatest example of individual choice and private sector competition is found in Medicare Part D. The overall projected cost of the drug benefit is $117 billion lower over the next 10 years than was estimated last summer due to the slowing of drug cost trends, lower estimates of plan spending, and higher rebates from drug manufacturers. Compared to original Medicare Modernization Act projections, the net Medicare cost of the new drug benefit is $243.7 billion, or 38.5 percent, lower over the 10-year period, 2004 to 2013.

Ninety percent of Medicare beneficiaries in a stand-alone Part D prescription drug plan, PDP, will had access to at least one plan in 2008 with lower premiums than they were paying in 2007. In every State, beneficiaries had access to at least one prescription drug plan with premiums of less than $20 a month. The national average monthly premium for the basic Medicare drug benefit in 2008 is projected to average roughly $25. Seventeen organizations will offer stand-alone prescription drug plans nationwide in 2008.

Beneficiaries had a wide range of plans from which to choose--some that have zero deductibles and some that offer other enhanced benefits, such as reduced deductibles and lower cost sharing. There also are options that cover generic drugs in the coverage gap for as low as $28.70 a month; nationwide, beneficiaries in any State can obtain such a plan for under $50 a month.

Consumer satisfaction with the Part D benefit is very high: Wall St Journal/Harris Interactive, December 2007--87 percent satisfied; VCR Research/Medicare Rx Network, November 2007--83 percent satisfied; KRC/ Medicare Today, October 2007--89 percent satisfied; and 90 percent of dual eligible beneficiaries and 85 percent of beneficiaries with limited incomes are satisfied. Both the KRC and VCR survey show that satisfaction is increasing 10 to 12 percent over the past 2 years and that 65 percent to 77 percent say that their Medicare plan is saving them money.

Our experience with the Medicare Advantage and Part D drug plan shows one thing--competition and choice works. Under Part D we have true competition--private plans bidding against one another and driving down the price of drug benefit packages to seniors. Seniors can go onto Medicare.gov and select the plan that best suits their needs for drugs, copays, pharmacy locations, and the overall premium. As I described earlier--premiums are more reasonable than we predicted and satisfaction is very high--competition and choice works.

Under Medicare Advantage we have competition-lite. Plans compete for beneficiaries, but Medicare Advantage reimbursement is tied to Medicare fee-

for-services rates in an area. People love to talk about how Medicare Advantage plans are reimbursed too much, but unfortunately that rally cry is based off a study that did not compare apples to apples. If you compare the cost of delivering Part A and B services alone, Medicare Advantage plans are only paid 2.8 percent more than Medicare FFS. I am comfortable paying 2.8 percent more because seniors have more choices, they receive more comprehensive benefits, and their care is coordinated under Medicare Advantage plans. Medicare Advantage plans actually match treatments with diseases and maintenance care with chronic conditions.

Senator Coburn and I want to move Medicare Advantage from competition-lite to full competition. We will be introducing a bill in the coming weeks that will force Medicare Advantage plans to truly compete against each other on price. Medicare Advantage plans already compete on service and quality under our bill they will have to taken lessons from Part D drug plans and compete on price.

If you have been listening from the beginning, you hopefully understand how effective competition and choice have been in two parts of the Medicare program. And you understand why I want that same robust health care competition and choice for every American. Every American deserves access to quality, affordable health care of their choice and competition between health care plans will help achieve that goal.

Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleague, Senator Graham, and I really do thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have come to the floor and talked about the GI bill and the fact that we were asleep for a number of years from the standpoint of making changes in the law that reflect the cost of education.

But what I want my colleagues to understand and the public to understand is that the Department of Defense used what we call education kickers to provide retention tools for our Active-Duty troops. Throughout this whole period, as they saw promising service men and women and they wanted them to stay in the military, they used what we call education kickers. They upped the amount of their education benefit if they would re-up for a period of time--3 years, 5 years, 6 years.

So to say that $1,100 was the ceiling, that is not accurate. The fact is, we have reached a point in time when we need to change the number in the law, what the base amount is that is the promise this country is making to our service men and women when they serve. I think it is appropriate, given we have gone through a decade--and I am sure most Americans would not find this hard to believe--where the highest area of inflation in America over the last 10 years has not been health care. It has been higher education. For any parent who is going through higher education with a child today, they know exactly what that means--that it costs a whole lot to go there.

Senator Webb deserves a lot of credit because for 18 months he has talked about changing our financial level of commitment. I have to say that has been healthy for the men and women who are serving. It has been healthy for this Senate to begin the debate on it. I do not want anybody to leave this debate and feel we are not both headed in the same direction. It is just that I have some fundamental disagreements with the way he structured it.

I believe there is a way to fulfill the promise, that if you serve, then we are going to commit to you, we are going to provide you with a quality education. When my dad came back from the Second World War, he had most of his education paid for before he left, but this is not something he went out and shopped. This is not something where he said: Gee, there is a benefit. Let me find the most expensive place I can go, and let me exercise it there. He focused on what he wanted to be and where the tools were that were available to him.

Sometimes we have to stop for a minute and reflect: What are the unintended consequences of what we do in this body? Well, one thing with the Webb bill is we disregard the fact that part of higher education comes out of the Department of Education today. It is called Pell grants. For those service men and women who qualify for them, that goes toward their education. The way this bill is written, we pay for their education, and the Pell grant, if they qualify--which most would--is then available for them after their education to pocket as cash. I am not sure that is the promise we made. I am not sure it is the promise the American people are committed to fulfill. I am not sure it is what our service men and women expect. They want an education.

What we have done is we have structured an alternative, the Grahamm- Burr-McCain bill, that provides exactly that. It is targeted at the average of the cost of public education in America. Now, fundamentally, I do not believe a student who picks an art and design school in the State of Michigan should be entitled to $13,000 for that school. Yet if he chooses the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, then he is only going to get $5,300.

Why is there a discrepancy in those two schools? Because States subsidize higher education at a different level because it is a State decision. It is State money that is used to subsidize higher education. In North Carolina, we choose to subsidize higher education to the tune of 70 percent. We do not expect every State to choose to subsidize it at that level.

But by the same token, why would we create a program that disenfranchises North Carolina, that says to North Carolina: Oh, boy, you are going to be cheated because you subsidize higher education so that more of your kids can have an affordable option. And because now the Federal Government

would have paid everything, you are going to lose money because you subsidize higher education. Unintended consequence: We are going to chase States out of the business of subsidizing higher education.

What is the net effect? Every kid in America who does not serve 3 years Active Duty, cumulative, is going to pay more because States are not going to subsidize. I am not sure that is what we are after. I surely do not suggest that is the intent of Senator Webb's legislation. It is what will happen if, in fact, we pass the legislation.

So Senator Graham and I and Senator McCain looked for: How do we take the existing system--not create a new one; this is not a wheel that is broken; it works, but let's fund it at today's funding needs.

Now, Senator Graham covered a lot of things that are in the bill. For an Active-Duty servicemember who serves 3 years Active Duty, we are going to provide $1,500 in living expense and tuition every month as a benefit. We are going to provide $1,000 for books and fees a year. For that individual who stays in the military over 6 years, 50 percent of the education benefit they accrue is transferable to a family member: a spouse or child. If a servicemember chooses to serve for 12 years or more, 100 percent of their GI education benefit is now transferable to a spouse or a child.

I think it is safe to say that for most who make a career out of the military, they have numerous opportunities to enhance their academic achievements on Active Duty. So the likelihood is a 20-year veteran of our services probably has all the education they need, and they have a huge education benefit. I cannot think of a better reward to people who have served their country than to say: Let's make this benefit available so you can educate your children. Let them choose the States that highly subsidize so they get more bang for their buck.

Senator Graham covered the fact that we put the responsibility for private schools to fill the gap on the private schools. We say to an institution: Do you know what. You are willing to retire debt for low- income Americans today. Well, let's see what type of commitment you are going to make for veterans, people who are part of the GI program.

Senator Webb's bill says to the school, Harvard, Yale, Duke, schools that have $35,000 tuitions: Do you know what. We are only paying $5,000 in North Carolina, so, Duke, if you get one of these, that $20,000-some difference--$25,000, $30,000 difference--for every dollar you put in, the Federal Government is going to put in.

What I say, in the legislation, to Duke is: All right. We are putting $14,400 in the pot for that GI. The difference is indebtedness at the end of his career. If you are willing to retire 25 percent of it, then we are going to put an extra $1,000 in the pot. If you are willing to retire 50 percent, we are putting $2,000 in the pot. If you are willing to retire 100 percent of the debt, we are going to put more money into the pot. We are not going dollar for dollar because I do not think that is our responsibility. There has to be a side of the academic institutions that is willing to also recognize the service of our men and women in uniform.

We were denied the opportunity to have a vote on a piece of legislation earlier today. It is a rule of the Senate that you can offer a motion to table an amendment. What does tabling an amendment mean? It means we were denied the opportunity to vote on a real education package for our service men and women.

What is the reason somebody would do that? Well, fear that we were going to win. Fear that enough Members would look at it and vote for it on the merits of the legislation, that we would win. What is the likelihood we are going to have an opportunity to offer our amendment? Probably none. Because the Webb amendment is going to be masked in an emergency supplemental that is going to be made up of war funding, funding that most Members--this one has no idea what other earmarked programs Members of the Senate are going to stick in it or the House of Representatives.

I would say to my colleagues, we ought to vote against the entire package, except for war funding. We ought to come to the floor. We ought to have a side by side: the Webb bill, the Graham bill. We ought to debate it on the merits, but we ought to take into account the needs of our military. To ignore retention, to ignore the tools the military needs to make sure our Nation is secure and strong, is absolutely ignorant. Now, it may be before it is over we are able to influence the authors of the other legislation to put transferability in theirs. But I have to say to my colleagues that the structure is fundamentally flawed.

I am the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs' Committee. Currently, the GI bill is administered partly out of DOD, partly out of the Department of Education, partly out of the Veterans' Administration. We have a Veterans' Administration today that is challenged to process the amount of disability claims, the appeals to disability claims, the appeals to medical services that are delivered. Now we are saying let's create a big new program and let's dump it in the Veterans' Administration and let's ask them to run it. How incredibly insensitive to the work that is currently going on but how insensitive to the needs of our veterans who are injured--those who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, those who transition out of Active Duty to veteran status who need a Veterans' Administration that is 100 percent focused on the delivery of health care, the processing of disability claims, and making sure every veteran is matched with a check that they need for their livelihood.

Now we are going to say: But we want you to now run education. We want to take the Department of Education out of it. We want to take DOD out of it. We want the Veterans' Administration to be responsible.

Millions and millions, hundreds of millions of dollars is going to be needed to administer this program, hundreds of millions of dollars. Forget the fact that to write the regulations out of a new agency is probably going to take well over a year. That is why the Webb bill is not proposed to start for some time after this body passes it.

I am sure we are going to have ample time to talk about the education benefit for our military members. I am not sure we are going to have an opportunity to have a choice. I am convinced people asked me to come here and serve to represent North Carolina to make sure we have a choice, and that it wasn't a choice between something and nothing, but that it was a choice between something and something. Every Member of the Senate--100 Members--should have the opportunity to come to this floor and to offer what they think is the solution to a problem. Not on this. We tried to do it because we didn't think we would get an opportunity, and instead of getting an up-or-down vote on a very important piece of legislation that provides and extends and revamps the GI education benefit for our military, it was decided that we were all going to have the opportunity to table consideration. I am not sure that is why we were all elected to be here. I think to some degree it shows what is worse about the institution that we are not willing to tackle.

This is the institution of great debate, and when we have big issues, we run from the debate, hoping that the American people aren't looking, hoping that nobody will read about what we have done, that nobody will see the missed opportunity. I will tell my colleagues, our service men and women aren't going to miss this one. It is not going to be over with a simple tabling vote. This is something that will continue to educate the American people and, more importantly, the men and women who put on a uniform and never ask why but go exactly where our Commander in Chief asks them to go.

I urge my colleagues to pay very special attention as we go through the debate on this legislation. Ask yourself not only is it right, ask yourself are the consequences of what we do the consequences that we would want to have happen. If there are unintended consequences to this, the general public of young people who are looking at higher education as an absolute necessity of their livelihood in the future are disenfranchised in some way by this. If servicemembers aren't allowed to extend an education benefit to their children or to their spouse, and it just goes away, have we really done our job? I think the answer is going to be no.

So I encourage the leadership in the majority to give us an opportunity to

have a fair up-or-down vote. Give us the opportunity to compare two pieces of legislation. Nobody should be scared to do that. Let America decide based upon their representatives in the Senate which one better fulfills the promise we have made to the men and women who serve but, more importantly, what upholds the structure of higher education in this country and doesn't disenfranchise or disadvantage any student now or in the future.

I am convinced we can only achieve that if we recognize a benefit that is uniform and equal across the board, not one that is determined by where you choose to go to school, not a benefit that is determined by where you choose to live, but a benefit that fulfills every promise that we are going to provide an education and put some degree of individual responsibility on how that is exercised. I am convinced that for those who may choose a community college versus a 4-year university, the savings they have should be savings they extend to their children and to their spouse.

That would not happen under the current Webb bill; it will just go away. They will miss out on that opportunity. They will never know that unless we are willing to have a debate on this floor. They are never going to know it unless we are provided the opportunity to present them with a choice between something and something versus something and nothing.

I thank the Chair for the time extended to me.

At this time I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, anniversaries are usually a time of joy, a time to celebrate, a time to remember happy occasions in one's life. This weekend, my sons celebrated Mother's Day with my wife, their mom, Brooke. Many know this is the 100th anniversary of Mother's Day.

Speaking of their mom, she and I will celebrate our 26th wedding anniversary this August. It is an anniversary that is very special, and it is something I intend to celebrate every day.

But today we mark an anniversary that is more troubling than celebratory. Today marks the 300th day since Judge Robert Conrad was nominated to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals--the 300th day. Judge Conrad was nominated in July 2007. It has been almost a year, and he still has yet to receive a hearing from the Judiciary Committee. Advise and consent. I don't think it said 300-plus days; it says advise and consent.

This is an anniversary of which I personally am not quite proud and, quite frankly, of which the Senate should be ashamed. We are telling the American people we are unable to fulfill one of the most important responsibilities for which they elect us as Senators. We are telling the American people that we cannot follow through with our constitutional responsibility of advise and consent on Federal judges.

I am not going to spend my time today pointing fingers and placing blame on one party or another. That would be a waste of everybody's time. I am here for quite the opposite reason. We need to encourage our fellow colleagues to better utilize our limited time left in this Congress and start confirming judges to the bench.

The unfortunate reality is that our Federal bench is suffering and, most importantly, vacancies on the bench hurt the American people. I have often said there is no area of daily life that is not affected by judges. Judges make decisions every day that have a long-lasting and significant impact on the entirety of the American people.

Unfortunately, our society has become so extremely comfortable with, if not aggressive about, filing lawsuits, and we must try to reduce that problem in and of itself. But in the meantime, we need to fill these lingering vacancies in order to give judges on the bench the help they desperately need to adjudicate their rapidly increasing caseloads.

Today, we have a great opportunity for this Congress to stop pointing fingers, to stop placing blame, and reverse the dreadful trend of underperformance on Federal judges. I encourage my colleagues to rise above the bickering and come to an understanding that confirming judges should be about legal qualifications and experience.

Judge Bob Conrad now waits for the 300th day for his nomination for a judiciary hearing. He is clearly qualified to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is almost impossible to think of a more qualified candidate. He has an excellent reputation as a knowledgeable and fair district court judge from the Western District of North Carolina.

Bob has twice--twice--been confirmed by the Senate, once in 2001 to become U.S. attorney and once in 2005 to be a U.S. district court judge--a candidate that has been confirmed by this body twice who cannot even get a Judiciary Committee hearing.

Bob received a unanimous--let me repeat that--a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating by the American Bar Association. Not every nominee receives a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating.

Bob's nomination to the Fourth Circuit Court has been endorsed by the Charlotte Observer, the Asheville Citizen-Times, and the Charleston Post and Courier. It is not the papers keeping him out of office; it is the Senate and, specifically, the Judiciary Committee.

Judge Conrad's nomination is also extremely important to North Carolina. My home State must get more representation on the Fourth Circuit Court. Our State has just one seated judge, even though we are the most populous State in the circuit.

Judge Conrad has been nominated to the Fourth Circuit Court seat. This is a seat that has been vacant for 14 years. Let me say that again. This is a judicial seat that has been vacant for 14 years. This Senate cannot fulfill its obligations to put a judge on this bench. It is now a judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of the Courts.

I could continue to list Judge Conrad's outstanding credentials and qualifications and, more importantly, why it is critical that he be confirmed to the Fourth Circuit Court, but really, this distinguished body could use a little less talk and a little more action. It is time to act on this nomination. It is time to give Judge Conrad a hearing and a vote on the Senate floor. He has been waiting patiently for over 300 days, and that is inexcusable.

Some may think they are helping their political party by blocking qualified Presidential nominees from being considered for the Federal bench, but what they are really hurting is our country and the American people. It is not just 1 or 2 of us or 100 U.S. Senators who suffer from this lack of progress, it is all of us.

I remind all of my colleagues that they should not celebrate this 300-day anniversary; they should act on it, they should act to get Bob Conrad a hearing and to get him a vote on the Senate floor. I ask my colleagues to do this for Judge Conrad, but, more importantly, do it for the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back any morning business time.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator what time he may use.

Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Chairman Akaka is a good man and a fair man. He is a wonderful chairman. He has produced a bill which has a tremendous amount of good. I am in deep respect of Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. This country owes both, as well as all World War II veterans, a tremendous thanks for their commitment.

As Senator Stevens mentioned ages, it made me think, on Monday my dad turned 87. He fought in the Pacific. He did it because it was the right thing to do. I believe protection of our veterans is the right thing to do.

Let me, if I may, focus everybody on what S. 1315 is. I ask a chart be put up. One might hear this debate and think this is all about a special pension for Philippine veterans who live in the Philippines who have no service-connected disability. There is a difference. This bill is so much more.

It is $332 million in Philippine benefits, of which $221 million is devoted to a new special pension that does not exist. There is a term life insurance program for our veterans of $83 million over 5 years and $326 million over 10 years; state approving agencies, $60 million; mortgage life insurance for our veterans, $51 million, retroactive traumatic injury, on-the-job training benefits, supplemental insurance, housing grants for burned injured, auto grants for burned injured, COLA for surviving spouses, and much more.

I wanted to highlight those items that are mandatory spending in the bill.

This is a good bill. Regardless of the outcome of my amendment, I want my colleagues to support final passage of this bill.

Having said that, I highlight the fact that we do have a difference as it relates to the pensions. Before I get into the specifics of why I believe, not as some have portrayed it that I believe it is too costly, I believe that, one, there was not a promise made. We did not imply it. It was not an impression that people had; that, in fact, when we look back at those individuals who served in this Chamber who made the decision on the Rescissions Act, they looked at the history very well. They looked at what Franklin Roosevelt said and the documents that backed it up. They looked at what General MacArthur said and the documents that backed it up. And they felt this was not the way for us to go.

Mr. President, I wish to yield a short period of time to my colleague, Senator Cornyn.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.

Let me highlight one area from these 11 points of the substance of Senator Akaka's bill, and it is the creation of a new special pension of $300 a month to Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines who have no service-connected disability and who did not serve in the United States services.

Now, the reason I want to draw that distinction--and I will ask for the next chart--is there are four groups of Filipino veterans. It is important to understand that the group we refer to as Old Scouts enlisted in the U.S. Army. Because they enlisted in the U.S. Army, they are extended every benefit a U.S. veteran has. We had three other groups, though, the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, Recognized Guerilla Forces, and New Philippine Scouts. Of those three categories, none were enlisted in the U.S. service.

Senator Inouye was correct, they were under U.S. command. There were a lot of people in the Second World War who were under the U.S. command. But the official account lists this as the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines. Now, the question that is at the heart of the matter here is: Were Filipino veterans promised VA benefits? According to the information provided in a 1998 congressional hearing, the Department of the Army examined its holdings on General McArthur and President Roosevelt and found no reference by either of these wartime leaders to post-war benefits for Filipino veterans.

Let me draw a distinction. For any Philippine veteran who has a service-connected disability, they are compensated today, whether they live in the United States or whether they live in the Philippines. For the soldier in the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, those whom Senator Stevens referred to from the Bataan Death March or side by side in the foxhole, and who had a service-connected disability, they receive compensation from the U.S. Government today, and have continually. The reference that they only got part of what the U.S. vet gets is, in fact, accurate. Because of the difference in the two economies, it was structured to recognize their economy and not to provide more than an equal share to U.S. veterans.

In this bill, we make a change, and that is why, when I alluded to the fact there is $320 some million designated for Filipinos but only $221 million designated to the special new pension, the other $100 million Senator Akaka has recognized that 50 cents on the dollar is very difficult to substantiate. What he does is he raises it dollar for dollar with U.S. veterans.

Let me put that in perspective. For a 100-percent disabled veteran in the Philippines today, it means today they get $1,200 a month. After this bill passes, they will get $2,400 a month, in an economy where the average annual income is $2,800 a month. We will take every servicemember, regardless of which of those three branches of the commonwealth army they served in, and they will be in the elite class from

a standpoint of income. I support that. I support Senator Akaka's change in the law.

But the root issue raised is: They were promised something more. Was it Congress's intent to grant full VA benefits to Filipino veterans? First, it is important to note that it was a 1942 VA legal opinion which concluded that Filipino veterans had served ``in the active military or naval service of the United States'' and on that basis were eligible for VA benefits. Senator Carl Hayden, who in 1946 was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, had this to say about VA's legal determination regarding Philippine Army veterans during the committee proceedings in March of that year:

There is nothing to indicate that there was any discussion

of the meaning of that term, probably because it is generally

well recognized and has been used in many statutes having to

do with members or former members of the American armed

forces. It would normally be construed to include persons

regularly enlisted or inducted in the regular manner in the

military and naval service of the United States.

He goes on to say:

But no one could be found who would assert that it was ever

the clear intention of Congress that such benefits as are

granted--under the GI Bill of Rights--should be extended to

the soldiers of the Philippine Army. There is nothing in the

text of any of the laws enacted by Congress for the benefit

of veterans to indicate such intent.

He goes further to say:

It is certainly unthinkable that Congress would extend the

normal meaning of the term to cover the large number of

Filipinos to whom it has been suggested that the Servicemen's

Readjustment Act of 1940 applies, at a cost running into

billions of dollars, aside from other considerations, without

some reference to it either in the debates in Congress or in

the committee reports.

Maybe this is the debate in Congress.

This issue was raised in 1997, and in June of that year, when the Clinton administration was asked to testify on this, Stephen Lemons, Acting Under Secretary for Benefits, was quoted in the hearing as saying this:

History shows that the limitations on eligibility for U.S.

benefits based on service in these Philippine forces were

based on a carefully considered determination of the

government's responsibilities toward them.

They testified against extending that benefit.

In 1948, there was a House hearing, and in that House hearing there was an exchange between witnesses and Members of the House. There was a Father Haggarty who came to testify, and I read from the official accounts of that hearing. This is Father Haggarty:

It was constantly promised, as the ambassador mentioned, in

radio broadcasts, official American broadcasts to the

Philippines in the war. It was definitely promised by General

McArthur, General Wainwright, and also it has been

acknowledged, I believe, that the Philippine groups

recognized the guerrillas, acting as members of the United

States Armed Forces, were entitled at one time to complete GI

bill of rights. That is, they were included. I believe that

is correct, and were later left out.

Mr. Allen, Member:

May I say there, Father, I know you are sincere about it,

but I think you are in error. Because there are three or four

of us here on the committee who were present when the GI bill

was written, and I don't think that ever entered into it.

So the individuals who wrote the GI bill in a committee hearing are verifying that was not even discussed, much less their intent.

There are a number of documents that have existed as committees have held hearings over a period of time from the Department of the Army, from the Roosevelt library. There have been searches everywhere to try to find any documentation that would lead one to believe that there was a promise, that there was an insinuation, and the fact is, whether it is Roosevelt documents, whether it is Army documents, whether it is General MacArthur's personal documents, no one can find anything, other than ``we believe this existed.''

What factors influenced Congress's decision to limit certain VA benefits to Philippine veterans in what is known as the Rescissions Act of 1946, where it was made perfectly clear in legislation that this was going to happen? Well, you have heard it from the authors of the GI bill. ``We never intended this to be extended.'' The Congressional Research Service testimony in April of 2007 provided the following conclusion based on its review of the congressional history.

It seems clear that Congress considered the Rescissions Act

in the context of providing for the comprehensive economic

development of the soon to be sovereign Republic of the

Philippines.

President Truman, in signing the Rescissions Act, reminded everyone in the United States that we shared responsibility with the Philippine Government for the welfare of Philippine veterans, but recognized that certain practical difficulties exist in applying the GI bill of rights to the Philippines.

Again, the second President in the line suggesting that this was not the intent.

As I said earlier, we extend disability compensation to any Filipino veteran, regardless of Commonwealth Army or of the U.S. Army, who was injured in service or disabled because of service. Now, what have we done? What specifically has the United States done since we left the Philippines?

After the war, the U.S. provided $620 million--in today's dollars that is $6.7 billion--for repair of public property and war damage claims and assistance to the Philippine Government. VA compensation for service-related disabilities, as I said, and survivor compensation was also provided, and again paid at a rate that reflected differences in the cost of living.

We are changing that. We are raising it to 100 percent. The United States provided $22.5 million--$196 million in today's dollars--for the construction and equipping of a hospital in the Philippines for the care of Filipino veterans. In addition, the U.S. Government provides annual grants to support the operation of the hospital, which was later donated to the Philippine Government. The grants continue to exist today.

Survivors of the Filipino veterans who died as a result of service are eligible for educational assistance benefits. Filipino veterans legally residing in the United States are eligible for full-rate disability compensation, full-rate cash burial benefits, full access to the VA health care clinics, medical centers, and burial in our national cemeteries.

I am not sure anybody can leave this debate and say we have not done our share. So we are back to one issue: the special pension. We are back to the creation of a special pension for some number of Filipinos who served or were affiliated with the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines that would place them in a pension category of $300 a month.

I will ask for the last chart to go up. I made this case 2 days ago extremely hard, and I want my colleagues to listen. The proposal to raise $300 is on top of what is currently paid by the Filipino Government to every veteran. That is $120 a month. That $120 a month in the Philippines puts every veteran 400 percent above the poverty line in the Philippines. Let me put it in perspective to the United States. For our veterans who receive a special pension because of income, that pension equates to 10 percent above the poverty line. Today, the $120 a month equates to 400 percent above the poverty line.

What we are being asked to do in 1315, and what I am cutting from 1315 and allocating to our veterans, is $300 a month, which would raise the Filipino veterans to 1400 percent over poverty.

Mr. President, that is 27 percent over the median annual income of a Filipino.

I might once again say, for U.S. veterans under special pensions, they are 10 percent above poverty; they are at 21 percent of median income--under, not over. This one change, this one creation of a new program, puts the whole group at 1400 percent over the poverty line and 27 percent over the median income. This is on top of the $1,200, if they are fully disabled, that they are currently getting each month. What Senator Akaka will do in his bill, and I support, raises that to $2,400 if they are 100 percent disabled.

I say to my colleagues, we are not here to create another class in the Philippines. I hold Senator Inouye's and Senator Stevens' belief that we owe these individuals so much--but so do we to our veterans, to my dad who just turned 87 who fought in the Pacific. Senator Craig, in the committee markup, attempted to reach a compromise. He offered $100 versus $300. It was rejected. The chairman knows I do not have any ill will over that; a decision was made, and it was rejected on a party- line vote.

I hope--and I say this to the chairman today--I hope this is the last time while I am here when the Veterans' Affairs Committee brings a bill to the floor that does not have the bipartisan consensus that history has proven, and I think he and I can accomplish that.

We inherited something on which we were incapable of coming to some compromise, so we have a tough decision to make. That decision today is about, frankly, our veterans or their veterans. Are we going to enhance the benefits for housing grants and for car grants or are we going to create a new special pension for Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines who have no service-connected disability? It is an issue of, Is it equitable?

What my amendment does is simple. It eliminates this new special pension and takes the $221 million and increases the grants that we have in adaptive housing for our burned veterans and for car grants.

We respect and we are grateful for the brave Filipino fighters, but this is about today, not yesterday. It is about the needs of our veterans, the equity of our generosity. It is not about broken promises, it is about recognizing priorities. It is not about young Members looking and saying that is too much money. No, it is about young Members looking and saying: You know what, when you can't fund everything you have to prioritize.

I urge my colleagues, I implore my colleagues, support my amendment and make sure we put our priorities in the right place. Then vote for passage. Support the chairman in his efforts for passage and know that each one of us will have upheld our responsibilities to our warriors, those individuals who protect us every day we are here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I will wait until tomorrow during the 1 hour of debate to take up the amendment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not plan on objecting, if the 5 minutes is to come out of the majority's time for the debate--which the time is split between now and 12 o'clock between the majority and minority--if Senator Klobuchar's time comes out of the majority's time, fine.

Mr. President, let me say this. It is disingenuous to come to the floor and suggest that I, or any Member of the minority, have stood in the way. I have stood in the way when the conditions to move forward were such that it diluted the minority's ability to represent its Members but, more importantly, the American people, and to limit us in the time of debate and in the amount of amendments. Yes, sir, it was not offered to have a full and open debate. We are in the process--and, as I said, I urge my Members to vote for cloture. I am sorry we have to have the vote, but that is the only thing that assures us the ability to have the time to debate these issues.

I think what you will find is how much we are all in agreement, which is 98 percent, and there is 2 percent on which we have a difference. I respect the chairman and other Members who believe a special pension should be set up for Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines and have no service-connected injury. But I disagree with that as a priority over our guys.

So I plan to offer an amendment that I have never had an opportunity to

offer which embraces 98 percent of what the chairman has in his bill, but it elects to prioritize our soldiers in enhanced benefits over the $221 million that is now devoted to Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines and have no service-connected injury.

I believe it is time for us to stand up for our guys versus that select group to whom there was never a promise made.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a deep respect for my chairman and friend, Senator Akaka. I think the Senator has suggested that over the course of the last half year we have had some disagreements. I don't expect him to know everything that has been communicated to staff or that my staff communicated to his staff.

The reality is that we are here today, and we each respect each other. We are both honored to serve in the Senate. We both have the same responsibility to the same people--and that is the American taxpayers--to make sure we are fiscally responsible but, more importantly, that we are prudent, that we prioritize things where they are needed the most.

At noon today we will have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1315. For one, I have mixed feelings about where we are in the process. I share the frustrations of Chairman Akaka. The proud tradition of the Senate committee on Veterans' Affairs has been to write laws that improve benefits and services for our veterans. Those laws typically enjoy bipartisan support. As a result, the committee's bills have almost always passed by unanimous consent. In fact, I asked the Senate Library to confirm that for me.

Since 1990, there have been only two rollcall votes on bills reported from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs: the first in the 102d Congress which cleared by a vote of 99 to 0; the second was in the 105th Congress and cleared by a vote of 98 to 0. There were no amendments that received rollcall votes on either of those bills.

This tells me that Republicans and Democrats have always been able to reach a compromise on committee bills out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. There has been no need for floor debate or rollcall votes when it comes to the veterans bills. The norm is to find a common agreement before moving forward, even on policy issues with which one side or the other may not agree.

This has changed during this Congress with the unprecedented vote on cloture that we will have today. The chairman, in the spirit of our relationship, sent me a letter on, I believe, the 10th of the month requesting that we work on this. The next day, the majority leader of the Senate filed cloture. I am not sure how quickly I am supposed to jump through the hoop for him, but I didn't do it fast enough. I say that with the knowledge that the chairman and I both have that we are not in charge. We don't always make the decisions on the course the Senate will follow.

Let me briefly outline for my colleagues the key disagreement that has held up this bill for so long; namely, the provision that seeks to use $221 million over the next 10 years to create a special pension for Filipino veterans who have no war injuries, are not U.S. citizens, and who reside in the Philippines.

There are four groups of Filipino veterans. Here is a chart. There are the old scouts, who enlisted in the U.S. Army. They are veterans of the U.S. Army through and through. You see in the benefits that is exactly what is displayed. We have the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, Recognized Guerilla Forces, and new Filipino Scouts, individuals committed to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and, yes, at times were under U.S. command.

The important thing to notice is our disagreement is with the pension for nonservice-connected disability and the death pension for survivors. It is the $221 million that is suggested to create a special pension for 13,000 individuals whom I do not dislike. I do not want any Member of this Congress to think in any way that I devalue what they did. But I have researched this in history, which we will get into over this debate, that Congress never intended for something such as this to be extended.

I, again, have profound respect for the World War II service of Filipino veterans. Their contribution to victory in the Pacific is a matter of historical record. We honor them--I honor them--their service, their sacrifice. We have good friends in the Philippines. But the issue at hand is not the merit of the service rendered by Filipino veterans. The issue is whether creating a special pension for them in the Philippines is responsive to the following questions:

Is it the right priority in time of war when the needs of our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are so great?

Two, is it appropriate policy, given the purpose of VA pensions and the vast differences in the United States and Filipino economies?

And last, is it fair to U.S. pension recipients from whom this money is taken to pay for this special pension in the Philippines?

Let me ask that another chart be put up because I think it is absolutely crucial that we understand exactly what we are talking about in a $300, or $221 million, special pension.

For a U.S. veteran, if they qualify for a special pension, we are going to get their annual stipend to $11,181, which is 17 percent of U.S. median income. We are going to take American veterans slightly above the poverty level. If it is a married veteran couple, we are going to get them to $14,643, which is 22 percent of the median income in the United States and slightly above the level of poverty. Special pensions were designed to make sure a veteran was out of poverty. We were not putting them into the middle class in the United States, but we were getting them out of poverty because that was the right thing to do. If it is a surviving spouse in the United States, they get a payment of $7,498, which is 11 percent of the median income in the United States.

Today in the Philippines, the Filipino Government provides $120 a month pension for these 13,000 individuals Senator Akaka is targeting. I am not taking into account the $120 a month that the Philippine Government is providing for each one of these 13,000. But if they are a single veteran in the Philippines with the stipend that Senator Akaka's bill has, we will provide $3,600 a year, which will be 87 percent of the median income of the Philippine economy. If you add in to that number the $120, we see they far exceed the median income of the middle class of the Philippines. If, in fact, it is a married couple, the stipend from the United States in a special pension for a Filipino living in the Philippines with no service-connected injury is $4,500, 108 percent of the median income of a Philippine family; in the case of a surviving spouse, $2,400, or 58 percent of the median income.

It is important to understand that the VA pension is designed for veterans who have no service-related injuries and who are poor, according to the U.S. definition of poverty. The maximum VA pension payable to a U.S. veteran puts them 10 percent above the poverty threshold and 17 percent of median income.

The Philippine Government, as I said, already provides a monthly pension to Philippine veterans, putting them at roughly 400 percent over poverty with the $120 pension that the Philippine Government provides, and 35 percent of the average income of the household. Adding an additional VA pension on top, as considered in S. 1315, would put a single Filipino veteran at roughly 1,400 percent over the Philippine poverty level.

What are we talking about in simplistic terms? We are going to allow a U.S. veteran to get slightly over the poverty level. The percentage was 10 percent. But we are going to create a special pension for Filipinos who live in the Philippines and have no service-connected disability that is going to make their percentage over poverty 1,400 percent when U.S. veterans are at 10 percent over the poverty line and 21 percent above the average household income.

A VA pension benefit is not designed to put a veteran in the middle class. It certainly does not in the United States. I do not believe it is our responsibility to do it in the Philippines, and I do not believe in this time of war that it is a priority of this country.

It is meant to ensure that no wartime veterans suffer the indignity of poverty, whether you are in the Philippines or whether you are in the United States. We have defined that in the United States as 10 percent above the poverty line.

I can argue that is not good enough, but I can certainly make the case that going to 1,400 percent above the poverty line is not right. It is not the right policy, and it is certainly not the right priority. Creating any new pension benefits for Filipinos in an effort to rectify what some call an injustice would only serve to create a new injustice for U.S.-based veterans because of an enormous discrepancy in the two Nations' economies.

As I said, I have deep respect for Senator Akaka. We will have a spirited debate, I am convinced, over the next 2 days, 3 days--whatever our leadership decides. That is where it gets out of our hands. I am willing to do it. I have done my homework. I am willing to get into the 1946 Senate hearings when the Senate debated an act where they took benefits away because they researched it to find out if we promised veterans' benefits be extended. And the court's interpretation was they extended it and, quite frankly, the Congress in 1946 legislatively took those benefits away that the court had awarded.

I have Senate hearings from 1948. And in the 1990s, I have the Clinton administration that came to this body and lobbied that this was not the right thing to do; they were not supportive of it. I am willing to share that information with all our colleagues, and over the next couple of days, I think everybody will get a great history lesson on what happened with our decisions and who has testified since 1944 to the Senate about this issue.

I do not expect any American who listens to be less than educated on whether this is the right move or the wrong move. But I also believe my colleagues will recognize the fact if we are establishing 10 percent above poverty for U.S. veterans and we are down here talking about a special pension to individuals who live in the Philippines who have no service-connected injury that is going to be 1,400 percent over poverty, this is the wrong thing for the Senate to do.

Mr. President, I am going to yield to my good friend and former ranking member of the committee. But I do want to say before I yield to him, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the cloture motion. I want to proceed. I want to debate this issue. I want to make sure every Member of the Senate has an opportunity to hear the full breadth of what has happened since 1946, and I am prepared to do exactly that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have deep respect for Senator Inouye, who just spoke. He is passionate. There is no American who can look at Senator Inouye and not see an American war hero. He has committed so much, and his perspective on history is important for all of us to recognize. Before him, Senator Stevens spoke, one of the foundations of the U.S. Senate. I find myself troubled to some degree that I am at odds with both of them on this issue.

I want Senator Inouye to know how much I respect him and how much research I have done on this issue, and I will try to make my case for why I do not think this is a priority but to do it in the most respectful way I possibly can to individuals, such as Senator Inouye, who have so much invested not just in their knowledge but in the commitment and sacrifices they have made.

Mr. President, we started debating S. 1315 earlier today. Where I ended off in that earlier debate was pointing out to my colleagues and the country how this special pension, a special pension we intend to provide to a very small group of Filipino veterans who were not enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces but were under control of U.S. forces and command of U.S. forces--I just want to point this out to everybody: Currently, the Filipino Government provides a $120-per-month pension to this select group of individuals. That pension puts every veteran at 400 percent over the poverty line in the Philippines. What S. 1315 attempts to do is to create a new special pension funded by the American taxpayers that would take the average income of this select group of Filipino veterans to 1,400 percent above the poverty line in the Philippines.

Now, let me put that in direct comparison to the United States. We have special pensions in the United States that apply to our veterans because we believe it is important to say no veteran should live in poverty. Our commitment is such that it is roughly over $10,000 a year. Let me compute what that $10,000 means relative to the poverty line. It means they are 10 percent above the poverty line in the United States.

So with all due respect to my colleagues, I am supposed to come down here on behalf of my constituents, my taxpayers, my veterans, suggesting there is equity in providing a 1,400-percent pension stipend for Filipino veterans over the poverty level but only 10 percent for U.S. veterans? Well, I cannot do that. That is why I am at odds with some of the people whom I really love and respect in this institution.

As I said earlier today, I have done a tremendous amount of research on this issue because so many people have suggested with a high degree of certainty there was a promise that was made. Well, I cannot find that promise. According to information provided at a 1998 congressional hearing, the Department of the Army examined its holdings on GEN Douglas MacArthur and President Franklin Roosevelt and ``found no reference by either of these wartime leaders to postwar benefits for Filipino veterans.''

Now, I am going to ask that another chart be put up that displays the difference in Filipino veterans because I think most would believe there is one target we are after. What you see here is four different groups. You see Old Scouts. These are the Filipino soldiers who signed up with the U.S. Army, and they served side by side in the U.S. Army. Today, they receive every benefit, except for those living in the Philippines and outside of the United States. And medical care is only provided at a clinic that the VA has in the Philippines. Every other benefit they get. They are getting pensions. They are getting death pensions for their survivors. They are getting burial benefits. They are getting everything because they were part of the U.S. Armed Forces, even though they are Filipino.

The other three categories you see: the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, recognized guerilla forces, New Philippine Scouts--yes, they were under the command of U.S. forces. Everybody in the Pacific was under U.S. force command. But they actually enlisted in the Filipino forces. We never solicited them. They could have joined the U.S. Army. They chose not to.

The reality is that just about every benefit, except for two, was extended to even the three groups that are the Filipino veterans. The two glaring exceptions are pensions for nonservice-related disabilities--nonservice-connected disabilities--and the death pension for survivors.

So what I want everybody to understand is, in a bill that totals over $900 million--that, I might add, we are funding. We are offsetting it because a court ruling took this away from U.S. veterans. We took money away in benefits from U.S. veterans. We are now using this $900 million the courts extracted to say we are going to enhance the benefits for our veterans here at home. As a matter of fact, over $300 million of it is life insurance changes we are making. And, yes, our veterans are benefiting from it. But $100 million of that $900 million is going in this category to beef up our commitment to Filipino veterans. But there is $221 million that is going to create a special pension, a pension for those Filipino troops who served as part of the Filipino military who were commanded by U.S. forces and never injured in combat. Let me say that again: Filipinos who live in the Philippines who were under U.S. command who served in the Filipino Army and have no service- connected disability.

This is not about disabilities. This is about a windfall. This is about a windfall that exceeds what our standard is here for our veterans, which is 10 percent above poverty, and currently the Filipino veterans are over 400 percent above poverty; and some in this institution suggest that the right thing for us to do is to raise their pension to 1,400 percent over the poverty level in the Philippines.

Some might say: Was it Congress's intent to grant full VA benefits to Filipino veterans? It is important to note that it was a 1942 VA legal opinion which concluded that Filipino veterans had served ``in the active military or naval service of the United States'' and on that basis were eligible for VA benefits.

Senator Carl Hayden, chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations, had this to say about the VA's legal determination regarding Philippine Army veterans during committee proceedings on March 25, 1946:

There is nothing to indicate that there was any discussion

of the meaning of that term, probably because it is generally

well recognized and has been used in many statutes having to

do with members or former members of the American armed

forces. It would normally be construed to include persons

regularly enlisted or inducted in the regular manner in the

military and naval service of the United States.

I go on:

But no one could be found who would assert that it was ever

the clear intention of Congress that such benefits as are

granted under . . . the GI bill of rights--should be extended

to the soldiers of the Philippine Army. There is nothing in

the text of any of the laws enacted by Congress for the

benefit of veterans to indicate such intent.

This is our colleague in 1946.

I go on:

It is certainly unthinkable that the Congress would extend

the normal meaning of the term to cover the large number of

Filipinos to whom it has been suggested that the Servicemen's

Readjustment Act of 1940 applies, at a cost running into

billions of dollars, aside from other considerations, without

some reference to it either in the debates in Congress or in

the committee reports.

Now, I am quoting from the history of our congressional hearings, of our Senate hearings, in 1946, from the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations.

Again, we have the Department of the Army examining the records of GEN Douglas MacArthur. We have the Department of the Army examining the papers of Franklin Roosevelt. They find no references by either of these wartime leaders to postwar benefits guaranteed to Filipinos. We have the records of the congressional hearing, and Senator Carl Hayden says: I have looked. There is nothing that suggests that this promise was ever made. Yet individuals come to the floor and they make this claim.

Now, I am convinced that--we are dealing with something 50 years later--it is very possible that memories are not exactly the same, that one person's recollection may be different today than it was in 1942 or 1944 or 1946. All the basis we have is to go back in history, to look at the documents, to see what the commitments were, and, more importantly, to try to get inside the heads of our colleagues then, to understand: If it was not in the letter of the law, what was the intent? Senator Hayden makes it very clear: It is not only not the letter of the law, it is not the intent of the Congress of the United States.

Now, what factors influenced Congress's decision to limit certain VA benefits to Filipino veterans in what is known as the Rescissions Act of 1946?

You see, in the United States we have the rule of law. When the courts determined, under their understanding, this set of benefits would apply, Congress actually passed legislation to rescind what the courts had awarded.

Again, quoting Senator Hayden:

The GI bill of rights is intended to benefit an American

who served in the armed forces and who, upon discharge from

the service, returns to civil life in the United States,

where American standards of living prevail. . . . Whenever

any part of the GI bill of rights is extended to Filipino

veterans, the cost of living in the Philippines and other

economic factors must be given careful consideration.

Let me go back to the chart I referenced. That is all we are applying. That is the only standard I am asking my colleagues to look at: that when we apply what sounds in the United States like a meager amount--$120 a month--what we are talking about is 400 percent over the poverty level. When we talk about increasing by $300 a month the pension, what we are doing is we are taking potentially a Filipino veteran who is already 400 percent over poverty, or more--assuming they have no other income--and we are putting them at 1,400 percent over poverty, which puts them way above the middle class of the Philippines. This is a tremendous windfall when you look at it from the standpoint of the size of the Philippine economy.

Mr. President, in total, S. 1315 proposes about $900 million worth of spending over 10 years. I will ask that a chart be put up so everybody can see what S. 1315 does. I think many have construed that I am opposed to S. 1315. I am the ranking member. I only have one piece I am opposed to. I have been accused of holding the bill up since last August. I have tried to negotiate this one piece since last August. What you see there is the Filipino piece, which is No. 1 on the list-- $332 million out of $900 million. The actual pension issue is $221 million. There is the term life insurance program, $326 million for our kids; the State approving agencies, $60 million; mortgage life insurance, $51 million. You can go down the list. It is $909 million worth of benefits. I am only addressing a small sliver. It is a quarter of it in dollars, but it is a small piece. I am for everything else.

If you take the Filipino special pension out, today I will propose to pass it under unanimous consent. I made the offer to the majority leader yesterday. This chart lists all of the provisions of S. 1315, from the most expensive provision to the least expensive provision. Again, you can see that the Filipino piece is the most expensive provision in S. 1315.

During a time of tight budgets, and when multiple commissions have recommended that Congress focus our resources to improve the benefits of our U.S. returning combat veterans, it is plain wrong to put the needs of Filipino veterans, with no service-related injuries, who are residing in the Philippines, ahead of our own service-injured men and women returning from war. I am not sure it is defensible to suggest that we are going to institute that special pension, which means we are not going to divert that $221 million to our men and women.

I will have a substitute amendment tomorrow. The only change in my substitute amendment is that it keeps intact everything but the special pension. It diverts the special pension and it enhances the ability for housing upgrades for our disabled troops to be made from $50,000 to $55,000. It provides additional grants for disabled veterans who need upgrades to their vehicles that they drive; it will up the special grants by $1,000. We are going to address additional burial benefits. We are going to address some discrepancies in education benefits for our Guard and Reserve. We are using the $221 million solely to divert it to our veterans.

Each of us has met with veterans organizations and constituents who have asked us to address the needs that exist in the veterans community, particularly the needs of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are defending us in the war on terror. The distinguished majority leader touched on this very point last Friday. Frankly, after reading his comments, I was hopeful he might support the amendment I am offering, the substitute amendment. On Friday, he talked about the number of Americans who died in Iraq. He talked about those who are coming home with physical and mental wounds. He made the following statement:

At the height of this war, with soldiers being wounded

every day and soldiers coming home from Iraq every day, we

can't even get a bill to deal with their health to the Senate

floor.

All I have ever asked for is a fair opportunity to amend the bill and a fair length of time to debate the bill. The majority leader has to make decisions as to whether he files cloture motions. He has filed 67 of them, because 67 times they tried to short the minority on our ability to exercise the rights we have as the minority, which are not many.

But 67 times it has been done, so 67 times he filed a cloture motion. That is part of leading; I am sorry.

But don't suggest that the No. 1 thing that you are for is our guys, when $221 million of this is going to set up a new special pension fund for Filipinos, who live in the Philippines, with no service-connected disability. It is disingenuous.

There is consensus in this body for everything else in S. 1315, except for one provision. We have tried for months to negotiate that one provision. For my colleagues who want to know why this bill has been at a standstill, it is because we have been trying to shift the money to our kids--our children and our grandchildren. At the committee markup last June, Senator Craig put forward an amendment to redirect the Filipino pension fund to other priorities. It was rejected on a straight party-line vote--another rarity in the Veterans' Committee. We don't have party-line votes in the Veterans' Committee. For some reason, this year we have now had them.

In December, shortly after the Dole-Shalala disability commission recommended we improve a host of benefits for war-injured veterans, I offered

another proposal to redirect the spending on pensions for Filipinos to higher priorities. It too was rejected. Any claim that there has not been an attempt to try to negotiate what is in this bill is ludicrous. I put that proposal in the form of a bill, S. 2640. We cannot hide from it. We will vote on it. Members will be asked to choose between our veterans and a 1,400-percent pension over the poverty line in the Philippines. That will happen tomorrow.

This comes down to where our priorities are--the Senate and this Congress. I believe our priorities should be on increasing the benefits that apply to our guys. I believe that the substitute amendment I will offer that increases housing grants for profoundly disabled veterans who need their homes modified is important. It should be a priority. I believe the auto grants for profoundly disabled veterans who need the freedom of mobility to live independently is a priority. I believe improvements to the education benefits for returning Guard and Reservists is a priority. I am sad to say that we do increase the burial benefits. I am sorry it is a provision that people have to take advantage of. But burial benefit increase is a priority of this country. I believe all of these things are absolutely crucial.

I met a veteran from North Carolina last year, Eric Edmundson. He needed a vehicle because of his disabilities. An unbelievable soldier; an unbelievable American. He will never fully recover. He will only be mobile with the help of the aids we can make available to him. The Edmundsons found an accessible van to accommodate Eric's injuries for $45,000. They had to pay $14,000 out of pocket.

Can we put the need of that van for Eric Edmundson as a top priority? We can if, in fact, we shift the $221 million that is going to people who have no service-connected disability, don't live in the United States, aren't U.S. citizens, didn't serve in the U.S. Army, but were under U.S. command during World War II. We are not going to be able to do it if, in fact, we don't shift the money.

My amendment would increase the auto grant benefit to $16,000 and, more importantly, in the case of the housing benefit, the auto benefit, and the burial benefit, it would index it so that annually we don't have to go in and legislate an increase. It increases with inflation, so for the first time what Congress does is actually thinks about the future and makes sure our veterans receive a benefit that is reflective of the inflation in between times that we have legislated.

Creating a pension in the Philippines, I suggest, is simply bad policy. I will make a comment on why the Philippine pension is not only the wrong priority, it cannot be justified as a matter of fairness. It is important to understand that VA pensions are designed for veterans, as I said earlier, to stay out of poverty. When we left the Philippines, we made some commitments to the Filipino Government. We transferred to them multiple hospitals and all the equipment that was in those hospitals. As a matter of fact, we granted them, at the time, a tremendous amount of money. That money, in today's standards, would be well into the billions of dollars. We didn't walk away and leave anybody without. We made sure that we rebuilt the country, but we also left the infrastructure that was most needed.

Let me suggest to you that this pension creates a new inequity. There were a lot of troops in the Second World War under U.S. command. They might not have been a territory of the United States, but they signed up for their army, and they were under U.S. command. What is to keep them from claiming they are owed a special pension from the United States? They have never done it. These are the only ones who have. If you think of all of our global partners who could claim, based upon this precedent, quite frankly, it would be a difficult thing for this country to deal with.

As I said earlier, this new spending is paid for by reversing the effects of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision for veterans' claims decision that granted extra pension benefits to elderly and poor U.S. veterans in a manner that was never intended by Congress.

Let me explain in layman's terms what that means. The VA made enhanced payments to U.S. veterans--benefits that were never intended in the letter of the law or in the intent of Congress. When the courts determined that, they pulled back about a billion dollars from this country's veterans. It is that billion dollars that is used in the offset for the $909 million spending plan we have in front of us today. I may argue the court's decision, but to take money from veterans in the United States, who are slightly above the poverty threshold, and spend it on a new special pension for Filipino veterans, who are already 400 percent above poverty in the Philippines, is flat wrong.

Let me say that again. What the court exercised was to take money away from U.S. veterans who are slightly over poverty, and I have said constantly what we do with special pensions in the United States, we get about 10 percent over the poverty line. We have Filipinos today at 400 percent over the poverty line, and the debate we are having is whether we go to 1,400 percent over the poverty line.

One of the largest service organizations, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, agrees. It passed a resolution in August urging Congress to use funds from reversing the effects of the court decision on U.S. veterans and not to create new benefits for Filipino veterans. If my colleagues adopted that approach, as many of us have urged from the beginning, S. 1315 would have become law in August 2007.

The chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is a good man. He is a friend. He sent me a letter on April 10, asking for my cooperation on a way forward with some of the contentious issues in S. 1315--primarily this--but on the very next day the majority leader was already talking about filing a cloture motion on the bill. I was perplexed a little. On the one hand, I had an offer to negotiate a way forward; but on the other hand, I have a cloture vote being proposed. I am not sure where the disconnect is. I don't like to look back. I believe we should look forward.

I am prepared to go to the bill. I believe it would be extremely healthy for this Congress and for the American people to be educated on exactly what this is about because this truly does beg where we place our priorities from the standpoint of the Senate. Are our priorities to fund our veterans, our kids with service-connected disabilities, or is our goal to set up a special pension for non-U.S. citizens who live in the Philippines, with no service-connected injuries, and to divert that money away from our kids?

The answer is pretty simple for me. I believe our priority is to make sure our troops get it. I believe our priority should be to make sure our soldiers get whatever they need, to make sure the Eric Edmundsons of the world have the van they need for their disabilities, to make sure those who need adaptive housing because of their severe disabilities from war have the money they need to upgrade their house so they can maneuver in it.

I daresay, a $1,000 increase on the auto grants and a $5,000 increase on the adaptive housing is not enough. I can tell my colleagues, we need to do more, and I am committed to say today I will do more. But how are we going to do more if we show something as irresponsible as a decision to spend $221 million that we have taken from U.S. veterans, away from people slightly over the poverty level, to allow it to go to individuals who are going to be above the middle class in the Philippines?

How can any veteran in America believe we are serious about prioritizing how we spend money in the future if, in fact, we display this type of judgment and willingness to extract money from our veterans to create new programs?

I am fairly confident we have a number of Members who would like to speak on this bill this evening. It is my hope we will have an opportunity to turn to consideration of the actual bill and to entertain any amendments our colleagues plan to offer on this bill.

When the majority leader left the floor earlier today, he said it was his request that we move as quickly to conclusion of this bill as we possibly can. I have given my colleagues a small snippet tonight of what the history I looked at says of our leaders at the time. There was no documentation, there was no hearsay, there was no intent of those leaders or the Congress to

actually extend a benefit such as those that have been described by some of my colleagues.

Clearly, this Congress, as any Congress of the future, could elect to add a benefit. For 50 years, the Congress could have added this benefit. The further we get from the 1942 act and the interpretation by the Court and the further we get from the 1946 Senate hearings that initiated the Rescissions Act that took the Court's interpretation of what the Filipinos were due away, I am convinced it requires somebody to do their homework and come to the floor and remind us of where our priorities are in this country; that until we have more than our kids need, the right priority is to spend it on ours and not necessarily on somebody else's.

I reiterate the fact that our veterans and our VA pension is designed for veterans who have no service-related injuries and who are poor, according to the U.S. definition of poverty, and the maximum VA pension payable to a U.S.-based veteran puts him at 10 percent above poverty and at 17 percent of the median average household income.

Again, the Philippine Government currently provides a $120 pension to this brave group of Filipino veterans, putting them at roughly 400 percent of poverty in the Philippines and 35 percent of the average household income. Adding an additional VA pension today, adding the pension that is already in S. 1315, would put a single Filipino veteran at 1,400 percent of the Filipino poverty level and 21 percent above the average household income.

Think about that. Our special pension is going to put them 21 percent over what the average Filipino makes annually.

If the argument I have made is not credible from the standpoint of prioritizing our spending, that it should be our kids and not necessarily their veterans, then I ask my colleagues: Is this our responsibility? Our responsibility is to take individuals and to put them 21 percent over the average working Filipino? I do not believe so. I do not believe that is a good thing. I believe it is wrong. But that is what we are being asked to do.

I am not sure the VA was intended to take people and put them in the middle class or, in the case of the Philippines, to put them above the middle class. It was to make sure our soldiers and their soldiers do not live in poverty. Clearly, they are doing better than we are today, and I challenge us to do more about ours, or maybe it describes for us the choice we have before us, that this would be ill-advised for us to proceed forward.

Since World War II, the United States of America has provided a tremendous amount to Filipino veterans. Congress authorized the construction and equipping of a hospital for the care of Filipino veterans. The Filipino Memorial Hospital Center VMMC was dedicated in 1955 and turned over to the Filipino Government free of charge. Congress authorized the transfer of another hospital located at Fort McKinley in the Philippines, including all the equipment contained in the hospital, to the Republic of the Philippines. Congress provided that annual grants be made to the Philippines to purchase equipment and material for the operation of these hospitals. Congress also authorized disability compensation, survivor compensation, funeral and burial benefits, dependents' educational benefits at the rate of 50 cents on the dollar for individuals residing in the Philippines and full-dollar benefits for those residing in the United States. Full eligibility for VA health care was provided to Filipino veterans legally residing in the United States.

We have done a lot. I am sure it is not as much as some want. We are faced with a job where we have people come in and ask every day--there is something everybody needs. I learned very early in life that the toughest thing to learn in life is to say no because that means somebody is upset with you. But you cannot go through life without learning the word ``no.'' You cannot do it in business, and you clearly cannot do it in politics. Maybe that is why Charles de Gaulle said politics is too serious a matter to leave up to politicians. It requires a participation level of the American people.

My hope is, over the next day, 2 days--whatever the leadership decides is the future of this bill--that we will have an opportunity to educate the American people and, at the same time, we will educate Members of the Senate that no matter how far you want to look back, no matter how much you want to try to speculate what went on, that when you stick with the written word, when you look at what President Roosevelt said, when you look at what General MacArthur said, when you look at what the Senate did and Senator Hayden--and they were there at the time and the Senate was charged with determining whether this benefit was appropriate--that from all the information in real time they looked at, their decision was the Rescissions Act, to take away what the courts had awarded.

Now, 50 years later, we are being asked not to apply what they thought was correct but to apply what we think today. Even if you use that standard, I daresay you cannot make a claim that a special pension that puts Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines, with no service-connected injury, 21 percent over the median income in the Philippines is the right thing for us to do.

I know there are several Members who are going to come over shortly. I expect Senator Chambliss any minute.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia.

I think my colleague put it very well. The big question is, has the U.S. Government met its obligation to Filipino veterans? I think that is at the heart of what some Members have raised with respect to this special pension. Let me say, Filipinos who fought under U.S. command in World War II were no doubt invaluable to the victory in the Pacific. Yes, they were U.S. nationals at the time, but they were also on a timetable to transition to a newly independent, sovereign Philippine Union. Thus, their welfare has always been a shared responsibility between the U.S. Government and the Philippine Government.

Here is what the U.S. taxpayer has already funded to meet United States commitments to the Filipino veterans. After the war the U.S. provided $620 million--that is $6.2 billion in today's dollars--for repair of public property, war damage claims, and assistance to the Philippine Government. VA compensation for service-related disabilities and survivor compensation was also provided, paid at a rate that reflected differences in the cost of living in the Philippines.

Let me suggest, about this cost of living consideration, the first time it has been raised is not today by me. It was actually applied in the 1940s, at the conclusion of the conflict, to the United States.

No. 2, the United States provided $22.5 million--$196 million in today's dollars--for the construction and equipping of a hospital in the Philippines for the care and treatment of Filipino veterans. In addition, the United States provided annual grants for operation of the hospital which was later donated to the Filipino Government. The grant assistance continues to this day.

Survivors of Philippine veterans who died as a result of service are eligible for educational assistance benefits, paid at a rate that reflects the differences in the cost of living.

All of a sudden we have second reference to payments being made in the Philippines at the conclusion of the conflict where the cost of living differential was considered in what the United States payment was.

Filipino veterans legally residing in the United States are entitled to a full rated compensation, full rate cash benefits, full access to the VA health clinics and medical centers, and burial in our Nation's national cemeteries.

In addition to that, I have mentioned another hospital at Fort McKinley that was donated to the Philippine Government.

The big question for Members of the Senate and members of the Roosevelt administration, the Secretary of War at the time, was how can we best help the Filipino people? How can we best help these veterans? It was to reconstruct the country. It was to create an infrastructure where health care could be delivered. It was to repair roads. It was to repair the infrastructure so the Philippines post war could have an economy, not dissimilar to the Marshall plan in Europe where the United States and others--primarily us--funded the reconstruction of much of Europe. That is because we knew a country without an economy, without the ability to manufacture something, without the ability for its people to earn something, probably would not survive.

We made the right decision. We pumped into the infrastructure billions of dollars by today's standards. We gave them hospitals. We built them hospitals. We gave them equipment. We bought them equipment. Today we still provide a grant assistance to the Philippines for the care of Filipino veterans.

Some might say if we had a different administration maybe things would be different. On July 25, 1997, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs heard testimony of Stephen Lemons, Acting Under Secretary for Benefits, in opposition to the bill granting full VA benefits to Filipinos. It was not the Bush administration, it was the Clinton administration. This has spanned 50 years. Think of the numbers of administrations. The quote then was:

Its enactment would upset decades-old policies which have

authorized some but not all VA benefits based on this

service.

I go on:

History shows that the limitations on eligibility for U.S.

benefits based on service in these Philippine forces were

based on a carefully considered determination of the

government's responsibility towards them.

I also continue:

Current law appropriately recognizes our two nations'

shared responsibility for well-being, and should not be

changed as proposed by this bill.

The Clinton administration lobbied Congress not to do what we are considering doing in S. 1315. What is it? To extend a new, special pension to Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines, who have no service-connected disability, that, along with the Philippine pension that is currently in place, would put these individuals at 1,400 percent over the poverty line and 27 percent over the average median income of the Philippine people.

Now, I went a little bit further. I checked out this book from 1948. It is called House Committee Hearings. I want to turn to one section I think is pertinent to this debate. Because 1946 was the year we passed the Rescissions Act. The Rescissions Act revised the Court's interpretation of what were VA benefits. This sheds a tremendous amount of light on the difference between my understanding and what those who were charged with investigating U.S. obligations at the time were.

There was a Father Haggerty who testified in front of the committee. These are Father Haggerty's words:

It was constantly promised that as the Ambassador mentioned

in radio broadcasts, official American broadcasts to the

Philippines during the war, it was definitely promised by

General MacArthur, General Wainwright, and also it has been

acknowledged, I believe, that Filipino groups recognized the

guerillas, acting as members of the United States Armed

Forces, were entitled at one time to the complete GI bill of

rights; that is, they were included. I believe that is

correct, and were later left out.

Mr. Allen, a member of the committee:

May I say this, Father, I know you are sincere about it.

But I think you are in error there because there are three or

four of us here on the committee who were present when the GI

bill was written. And I do not think this was ever entered

into.

The chairman: ``It did not come up?''

Mr. Allen: ``The Filipinos never entered into it.''

Father Haggerty: ``I am also speaking of the impression

that they all had.''

Mr. Allen: ``We are not responsible for impressions, of

course.''

I said earlier I have tremendous respect for my colleagues who are on the

opposite side of this issue with me. I am sure their recollections-- they served, I did not--are probably as accurate as Father Haggerty, who in 1948, voluntarily, I think, went in front of a House committee, probably the veterans committee, along with an ambassador, and the Ambassador swore: ``This is what I understood.''

Father Haggerty said:

This was what I--I heard it, I heard the American

Government say it. I heard General MacArthur say it, General

Wainwright say it.

Well, I said earlier to those who were listening, we had testimony from the Army that said: We looked at General MacArthur's records. We looked at President Roosevelt's records. There was never an intent for this to be extended.

Now, what we find in the Congressional hearing in 1948 is those specific questions were asked by members, and Father Haggerty swears this was accurate, that we said this, that this was the intent of the GI bill.

And Mr. Allen, a member of the committee:

May I say this, Father? I know you are sincere about it.

But I think you are in error. You are in error because there

are three or four of us on this committee who were present

when the GI bill was written, and I do not think this was

ever entered into.

I am sure as we go through this, we are going to find others who come to the floor and say: Listen, I know this was the intent of Congress. It is probably the way they envisioned it today. But when you go back to the actual records of the 1940s, when you go back to the 1948 testimony, when you go back to the 1946 rescissions bill, when you go back to 1944, and Senator Hayden, this has been explored over and over and over. In every case, with different members, they came to the same conclusion. Let me read from a more recent committee hearing, the committee hearing that took place last year with Senator Craig, who was then ranking member of the committee, as he talked to Mr. Ron Aument.

He said:

Ron, let me take off from where the chairman has gone with

a couple of questions. If the committee were to structure a

pension benefit for those residing in the Philippines that

had the same purchasing power that a pension recipient in the

United States had, what would be the equivalent maximum

pension benefit? Have you ever done any calculations based on

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I would love for that.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

We had a unanimous vote earlier today to proceed to the bill. I believe it has been a productive day. I believe Members have learned a lot in the debate, and I think it is important to get the history of the issue on the record for all Members.

Having said that, I am prepared to begin consideration of the bill and for the amendment process to begin as well. Under the rules, my understanding is the cloture vote on Ledbetter would proceed an hour after we convene.

Now, I am not in a position to delay the Ledbetter bill, but I am in a position to agree to go immediately in the morning to consideration of S. 1315. The way the majority leader has worded his unanimous consent request would push off the rules of the Senate, requiring that the Ledbetter vote be in the morning. So, therefore, I have to object.

May I ask a question of the majority leader?

My understanding in the unanimous consent request is that as to the rule that would require us to vote on cloture on the Ledbetter issue 1 hour after we started business tomorrow, under the unanimous consent request, the majority leader has asked that to be postponed until 6:30 tomorrow night. Am I correct?

Six o'clock. I apologize.

Continuing my reservation, Mr. President, as I understand the leader, it is not the minority and it is certainly not me who is suggesting that tomorrow be unproductive; it is the majority leader's desire to change the Senate rules and to move a vote on cloture on the Ledbetter issue from 1 hour after we come into session to 6 o'clock tomorrow night to accommodate people who are not in Washington, supposedly when the Senate is in session.

I think the Senator makes some great observations about the debate today. I agree with him about the heroism of Senator Inouye and others, Senator Stevens, who performed bravely in the Pacific in World War II, and the debate we have had today. If we have learned anything, it is that we have brave Senators, but we also have the history to look at as to whether this benefit was intended for these individuals. That is why the debate was so important that Senator Reid and I discussed earlier yesterday and we continue now. But with the insistence that we change the Senate rules and delay the vote on Ledbetter, I would have to be opposed to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I would like to ask the majority leader before he leaves the floor--I know he has a very busy schedule--the majority leader alluded to a bill on which we will take up a cloture motion tomorrow. I want the majority leader to know before he leaves the floor that the only thing that is contentious in the veterans bill that he has referred to is a new special pension that has been created in this bill of $300 to Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines, who have no service-connected injuries. If that were stripped from the bill, then this bill is one that I believe we could pass by unanimous consent on the Senate floor.

In the absence of that----

I am happy to yield for a question.

Let me assure the majority leader, as ranking member of the committee, I do not intend to vote against cloture. I intend to proceed to the bill. I intend to offer an amendment that strips out the provision of $300 of a special pension that I think prioritizes that group above our veterans who are coming back. My amendment would hold everything else in Senator Akaka's bill in place, but we would also make additions by using that $21 million for additional funding for our troops who are coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I hope the majority leader would at least consider voting for my amendment when it comes up. We have a rich history on this issue. It starts with the conclusion of the Second World War, when the United States made some very important gifts to the Philippines--the total of two hospitals, equipment, grants to rebuild the Philippines--to make sure those who served were in fact taken care of.

I might also add for the majority leader, incorporated into Senator Akaka's bill, which is a very good bill on balance, there is only one area that we have any problems with. We hold intact those Filipino veterans who are in the United States receiving full VA benefits. Those who are outside the United States, living in the Philippines but with service-connected injuries, they receive compensation. It is those who live outside the United States, in the Philippines, with no service- connected injury whatsoever, that creating a special pension is not the right thing to do, as we have troops who are coming back at this time.

I pledge to the majority leader my willingness to move forward to consideration of the bill--to have a spirited debate, I am sure, but clearly to try to address what I think are the priorities, or should be the priorities, of this Senate, and that is to focus on our troops.

I share the leader's frustration and do not think, in that case, cloture was necessary. But with the restrictions that are placed on me as ranking member, that I can only agree to a bill if there are no amendments and there is a limit set of debate time and I have to speak for 48 others who might not share that limited debate time or a set amount of amendments, I think the leader knows that is something that is impossible for me to do and impossible for me to suggest to my leadership.

I have had the amendment ready to go for months. I think it is a shame the majority in the committee was not willing to talk about any changes to the bill. Now I think we are to a point where it is healthy for the Senate in total to debate the merits and priorities of our country.

Were Filipino veterans promised a VA benefit? According to all the information I have researched and the information provided in 1998 at a congressional hearing with the Department of the Army--it examined its holdings of the Douglas MacArthur and President Franklin Roosevelt papers and found no references by either of those wartime leaders to postwar benefits for Filipino veterans.

Let me be very specific. This bill, S. 1315, does two things: No. 1, it enhances some benefits for our veterans.

I think that receives unanimous support in the Senate. But, two, it diverts $221 million over the next 10 years to create a special pension for a very specific slice of Filipino veterans, those who live in the Philippines, those who had no service-connected injury, those who have gone post the war with the understanding that the United States stepped in by gifting two hospitals, by gifting medical equipment, by gifting everything, and rebuilding the Philippines.

At a time of war where we are fighting on two fronts, Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe the important thing and prudent thing is to take the $221 million, over 10 years, and devote it to our men and women who are coming out of combat. S. 1315 has the wrong priorities. So I put together a substitute proposal, S. 2640. I will offer that as an amendment at the appropriate point in the debate.

In that bill, we do one specific thing: We increase what is in S. 1315, minus the special pensions, and we propose increasing housing grants for profoundly disabled veterans who need their homes modified to accommodate their disabilities; we increase the auto grants for profoundly disabled veterans who need that freedom of the platform, the platform for mobility to live independently; it improves the education benefits for our Guard and Reserves; it increases the burial benefits to lessen the financial burden on families of deceased veterans.

I did not come over today to debate the merits of S. 1350. I see the chairman, Chairman Akaka, is here. The chairman has known since last year that I had problems with that portion of the bill, and we have tried to work out the differences. But as I said earlier, for it to be communicated that we have reached this point because of stall and delay and because we are against things, it is flatly wrong. I am for 99 percent of the bill. Drop the part that prioritizes someone else in front of our veterans, and I am ready to go forward, I am ready to pass it by unanimous consent.

But by the same token, I believe when given the responsibility to make sure our veterans are taken care of, to make sure that those with severe disabilities are taken care of, to devote $221 million to a new special pension, I believe, is the wrong priority at this point in time.

I believe we should look at the history and find out: Did we make a commitment? Well, I cannot find that. I cannot find where we promised somebody something we have not fulfilled. Tomorrow, I will take the opportunity to go through a very indepth bit of research, not just done by me but done over the years that goes back to 1946 in great detail; looks at what the promises were that were made by the United States; but, more importantly, again, the generosity already displayed by this country to the Philippines to reward them for their participation, and, by the way, our help to liberate their country from the siege of an enemy.

I am convinced the right thing to do is to prioritize that $221 million for our troops, for our kids from Afghanistan, for our kids from Iraq, to make sure that those who have paid a sacrifice, and in some cases the ultimate sacrifice, are the beneficiaries of this money.

I am committed to come to the floor and debate, as I have made a promise to the chairman. I am not going to block the motion to proceed. By the same token, I am not going to vote for limiting the amount of time Members want to spend on this because I think it is too important. Our veterans deserve as much time as it takes for us to debate where our priorities on money are. If at the end of the day this body votes we send it in the form of a special pension to Filipinos in the Philippines who have no service-connected injury, I will live with that.

But I will not live with it by agreeing to less than the amount of time that is needed to debate an issue about the future of our kids, our service personnel, the men and women who put on a uniform and risk their lives every day. I believe they should sit at the top of the list. And S. 1315 does not put them there. S. 1315 puts at the top of the list a new special pension program for people who have never had a service-connected injury.

I am as sympathetic to those who fall into the category of having helped us. I might mention again, the Filipinos who live in the United States who fought in the Philippines for us, we take care of; we have integrated them fully into the Veterans' Administration. They receive every service our veterans do. To those Filipinos who live in the Philippines who have service-connected injuries, we have made sure compensation is in this bill to take care of them.

But for those who do not have service-connected injuries, I cannot see where they fit at the top of the list of $221 million and our kids go below it, as it relates to what they need for the severely disabled injuries they have been faced with.

I have a number of soldiers in North Carolina, at least they are stationed in North Carolina, that fall into this category. When we see Eric Edmundson's family spend $47,000 on a van, and $14,000 of that comes out-of-pocket, I have to ask: Where are our priorities? Where are the priorities of the Congress in defense of these kids? Well, they are in $221 million getting ready to go to the Philippines. That is where they are. That is the debate we are going to have over the next several days. If it takes a week or if it takes a month, then we will have that debate. At some point, we will take a vote. I believe the American people will see the advantage, the need, to make sure the No. 1 priority is our kids in uniform, our veterans who come back who will be serviced by this very important piece of legislation.

I am committed to Chairman Akaka that once we can dispose of the issue of this special pension, I am more than willing to vote for the rest of the bill because it is a good bill. It brings some needed benefits to our veterans.

It never should have been locked up for the length of period this was. But make no mistake about it, no matter how good a bill is, if you want to structure it in a way that debate does not flourish in the Senate, then we have done an injustice to the American people. The most deliberative body in the world is supposed to be one that you are not corralled into agreeing to a certain amount of time to debate on an issue; it is where everybody's voice is heard, it is where every bit of information about an issue can be presented. It is where charts can display what words cannot explain.

That is what the next several days will be about with S. 1315. I am convinced that at the end of this process, not only will Members in this body be enlightened by what we are able to talk about, but the American people will be enlightened, and hopefully this body will vote, hopefully in the majority way, that the priority, the No. 1 priority is our men and women in uniform when they come home.

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss S. 2674, a bill I introduced to improve and modernize the disability system of the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs so that it meets the needs of both our older generations of veterans and our wounded warriors coming home today.

One of the most sacred trusts we make is the one with our veterans. Their sacrifices, and the sacrifices of their families, are inspiring. The desire to provide these heroes with the benefits and services they need and deserve is certainly something we can all agree on.

With this sacred trust in mind, I recently introduced legislation to ensure veterans have a disability system that we can all be proud of--a system that is updated to reflect the modern day, is consistent, is not overly bureaucratic, and meets the needs of all generations of veterans.

The challenges facing our newer veterans are apparent. Over the past few years, I have met with many young servicemembers, some from my home State of North Carolina, who have suffered devastating injuries while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost as remarkable as their courage and their can-do attitudes, is their outlook about the future.

These wounded warriors rightfully expect that serious injuries should not prevent them from living productive and fulfilling lives. In fact, many want nothing less than to return to their units, and with modern medicine and technology, many are doing just that.

But for those who are not able to continue serving, like Ted Wade from my home State, they deserve a disability system that meets their needs and expectations. We should be giving them--in a quick, hassle free, and effective way--the benefits and services they need to return to their full and productive lives.

But, the need for an improved system became very clear last year, when news reports detailed how some seriously injured servicemembers at Walter Reed endured a lengthy, hard-to-understand, bureaucratic process to try to get their disability benefits. This left many injured servicemembers and their families frustrated, confused, and disappointed. It left our Nation angry and ashamed.

Let me give you a brief idea of what an injured servicemember may have to go through. Consider a young soldier who is injured in Iraq and is no longer fit for duty because of his injuries. Before he can be discharged from the military, he may go through a lengthy, complex process with the Department of Defense to be assigned a disability rating between 0 percent and 100 percent.

If the rating is high enough--30 percent or more--he will get a lifetime annuity, health care for his entire family, exchange and commissary privileges, and other benefits. If it is below 30 percent, he will get only a lump-sum severance payment. But there have been no bright-line rules on how these ratings are assigned. Each branch of the military has used different procedures, so servicemembers in various branches often receive different ratings even for the same injuries.

After going through that confusing process, the injured soldier may then go through a similar bureaucratic process with the Department of Veterans Affairs to get a VA rating. That rating will determine not only the level of monthly disability compensation he will receive from VA, but eligibility for other benefits and services such as vocational rehabilitation and priority access to VA health care.

As if all of that isn't confusing enough, both DOD and VA assign those disability ratings based on the same VA rating schedule, but the ratings are often different. And, there are complicated rules over how much of the benefits from DOD and VA the veteran may receive at the same time. If those watching today are as confused by that description of the process as I am, imagine what our veterans have to endure.

On top of all that, the rating schedule used by both VA and DOD to determine who gets these critical benefits is completely outdated. This schedule was developed in the early 1900s and about 35 percent of it has not been updated since 1945.

The schedule is also 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 are telling us the 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.

So, it's completely understandable why so many veterans are frustrated and confused by this system. The question is:

How do we fix it?

To help answer that question, two distinguished commissions issued reports last year laying out the problems with the system and giving us a road map to a modern, more consistent, and simpler system. One commission, the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors, was chaired by former Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary Donna Shalala. The other, the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, was chaired by General James Terry Scott.

Here are just a few examples of what these commissions found:

Despite their disability systems' different intents,

processes, and outcomes, DOD and VA use the same outdated

rating sched-

ule . . . . [which] has not been completely revised since

1945.

[T]he policies and procedures used by VA and DOD are not

consistent and the resulting dual systems are not in the best

interest of the injured servicemember nor the nation.

The purpose of the current veterans disability compensation

program . . . is to compensate for average impairment in

earning capacity . . . This is an unduly restrictive

rationale for the program and is inconsistent with current

models of disability.

The goal of disability benefits should be rehabilitation

and reintegration into civilian life'' but that goal ``is not

being met.

These two commissions strongly recommended that we need to: get rid of the overlapping, confusing roles of VA and DOD in the disability rating process; completely update the VA disability rating schedule; compensate veterans for any loss of quality of life, while also compensating them for any loss in their earnings capacity; and place more emphasis on the treatment and rehabilitation of injured veterans.

As the Dole-Shalala Commission cautioned, ``We don't recommend merely patching the system, as has been done in the past. Instead, the experiences of these young men and women have highlighted the need for fundamental changes.''

What's interesting to note here is that similar changes to the system were recommended in 1956 by a commission led by General Omar Bradley. Back in the 1950s, the Bradley Commission wrote in its report: ``Our philosophy of veterans' benefits must . . . be modernized and the whole structure of traditional veterans' programs brought up to date.'' If my math is right that was over 50 years ago. Clearly, we are long overdue for some improvements.

I believe the bill I introduced will start us on the right path to making this system more straight-forward, consistent, and modern. Let me give you an idea of what America's Wounded Warriors Act would do.

First, the bill would simplify the DOD process and make it more consistent. Any servicemember found unfit for duty--regardless of the severity of the disability--would receive a lifetime annuity based on rank and years of service and would receive other retirement benefits, such as commissary and exchange privileges. Eligibility for TRICARE would be determined by Congress or DOD, after further studies on that issue.

These changes would get DOD out of the business of assigning disability ratings, ending the duplicative system that now makes injured veterans get rated by both DOD and VA. It would also create a bright line rule on what benefits a medically discharged servicemember would receive. Different branches of the military would no longer provide different levels of benefits to servicemembers with the same injuries.

Under my bill, veterans would receive both their entire DOD annuity plus any VA disability benefits they are eligible for. This would put an end to the confusing practice of offsetting some DOD and VA benefits.

This bill would also help modernize the VA disability system. The VA's outdated disability rating schedule would be entirely replaced by a new schedule that is based on modern science and medicine. It will also take into account the impact that a disability has on both a veteran's average loss of earning capacity and loss of quality of life. As we now know, quality of life--time spent with family, community and nonwork activities--is also affected by disability. Shouldn't our disability system reflect the impact service-related disabilities have on those important aspects of life, too?

Also, this bill would provide more emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation. Veterans discharged from service because of disability would be eligible for transition payments, either during the three month period following their separation or during a period of rehabilitation. These payments would help cover family living expenses, so an injured veteran would be better able to focus on rehabilitation, training, and getting back into the workforce. These are commonsense options and solutions for today's veterans living in the modern world.

Lastly, I want all veterans, whether having served in World War II, Vietnam, or Afghanistan, to have access to an improved system. My bill does not distinguish between combat and non-combat injuries; does not leave the outdated rating schedule in place; and does not prevent veterans of any generation from choosing to join the new, improved system. Also, as recommended by veterans' organizations, my efforts were guided by the work of both the Dole-Shalala Commission and the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission.

How will we actually accomplish the goals of making the system simpler, consistent and more modern? Under this bill, the Department of Veterans Affairs would conduct a series of studies and would send to Congress a proposal outlining a new rating schedule and the amount and duration of transition payments. To make sure these recommendations don't get put on a shelf to collect dust--as has happened in the past-- the entire VA proposal would be subject to an up-or-down vote by Congress.

If these changes are enacted, it would eliminate the confusion and delay now caused by the overlapping VA and DOD functions and put a greater emphasis on the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. It would update the rating system to take into account modern concepts of disability and make sure that veterans are compensated for any loss in their quality of life.

As a final note, I want to acknowledge that reforming the disability system may require a large, upfront cost. But, if we do it right, we will be making a real investment in the future of our nation's veterans. Given the character of the men and women of our Armed Forces, this investment will come with little risk and great reward.

We cannot put this off for another 50 years and hope another generation will fix the disability system later. We have young men and women returning home from war with devastating injuries that most of us could not fathom enduring, let alone at such young ages.

The sad truth is that, even though the disability system was already outdated more than five decades ago, Congress and past administrations have not made the necessary changes to keep pace with modern society, a changing economy, and new attitudes towards disability. I believe I have an idea why: This is really hard stuff. This is a complicated system and it is often easier to use band-aids and quick fixes to get us through times of crisis. But, the Walter Reed stories showed all of us last year that wounded warriors--those injured while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan--are the ones who pay the price for our inaction. And every day we continue to wait is another day they continue to pay that price. They deserve better.

We need to listen to the wake-up call that the Walter Reed stories sent all of us. We must act now, and that is why I have introduced a bill that will update the system to meet the needs and expectations of today's veterans and does not leave tomorrow's veterans with a system that was already outdated before they were even born. Our veterans deserve a system that is more straightforward, up-to-date, and consistent and that is open to all.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to remember the ``call to action'' we received last year when serious problems were publicly exposed at Walter Reed, and I ask them to join me in improving the lives of our veterans.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his amendment. I want to make it clear to my colleagues in the Senate that you should not vote for this amendment. I will say that again. You should not vote for the Allard amendment.

The amendment reflects the proposals that one candidate made in the Presidential race to, in a blanket way, spend $300 billion a year--the first year. We all know if you have 1 year of spending up here, all you need to do is multiply it by how many years you are going to watch it because you will end up close to what the total is. If you look at over a 5-year period, you are looking at a tremendous growth in spending.

Now, this may be considered by some an economic stimulus package--I think that is probably the only way it could be billed--and that we are going to grow the size of the Federal Government through what they spend. That is not how I envision economic growth. I envision that when you fuel, through policies, the commitment by the private sector to invest in bricks and mortar and buy new equipment, to create jobs and hire our children and grandchildren, to continue to innovate to bring new resources to the marketplace and make sure the U.S. economy grows-- not the U.S. Government--I think if the American people wish for anything today, they wish we would slash the size of the Federal Government. They wish we would cut the number of employees and that we would actually take a look at the programs that the Federal Government has that we have funded--and that we created many times--that don't work today, and actually fix them and make

them work or get rid of them. But, no, in typical fashion, every election year we say the Government is broken, this or that doesn't work, so let's create new programs. Let's not try to fix the ones that are there. Maybe they will just go away on their own. But they never do. Spending piles up and piles up.

So there is a big difference as we go into this budget debate, and as we go into this election year. The question is, are you going to ask the private sector to fuel the economic growth? Are you going to ask the private sector to invest in bricks and mortar and job creation or are you going to let the Federal Government do it? Our track record in the Federal Government is not too good.

Senator Obama's $300 billion spending proposal--in one year, again-- would cost more than 42 State budgets combined; 42 of the States in this country, in total, have a smaller budget than the $300 billion that Senator Obama is proposing to spend in the first year of his administration.

Quite frankly, who will pay for the $300 billion increase in the size of the Federal Government, the spending and the number of employees in the Federal Government? The American people will, the middle class will. I think my colleague from Colorado said it very well--that even though the rhetoric says we are going to target those people at just the top of the income level, that Congress would need to increase taxes on the top 1 percent of taxpayers 57 percent, which would be a $40,000 increase, if you want to try to raise it just on the backs of the wealthiest or highest taxpayers. In all likelihood, the average taxpayer earning $62,000 a year would see their income tax rise $5,300 or 61 percent. That is how low you would have to go on the taxable scale to be able to raise the money you need to fund the $300 billion increase in the Federal Government.

Let me put things into perspective. CBO said that President Clinton, in 1993, raised taxes in this country $240.6 billion over 5 years. The late Senator Moynihan, from New York, called it the ``largest tax increase in the history of public financing in the United States or anywhere else in the world.'' Now, what Senator Obama is proposing for a spending increase in 1 year is bigger than the 5-year increase that President Clinton imposed on the American taxpayer, which was the largest in the history of the country or, as Senator Moynihan said, anywhere else in the world. Senator Obama has promised to pay for this new record spending with tax increases on families making over $250,000 a year. That is a pretty attractive target, as we have learned. I think more Americans aspire to get there than worry about getting there.

However, as my dear friend from Colorado points out, this increase would only yield $225 billion over 5 years, which is a far cry from what the amount is that we will need, which is $1.4 trillion. I will say that again. It is $1.4 trillion, which is required under the new spending program.

So in typical Washington fashion, we have a proposal by somebody to spend $1.4 trillion and to pay for it in total with the taxes on just families making over $250,000 in income, which would equal $225 billion over 5 years. Somehow in Washington that is understood as a promise to pay for it in total--$225 billion collected in taxes and $1.4 trillion spent.

I don't need to belabor the point. I am here to beg my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Vote against my friend from Colorado. Turn him down. America doesn't need us to spend more money. They need us to fix the programs designed to affect the American people today. We don't need to tax the American people more. We need to tax them less. We need to look at corporate taxes in this country and we need to reduce them. We need to look at health care and fix it. We need to look at education and we need to figure out how every child crosses the goal line of graduation on time. Government is not going to do that. Communities and the private sector are the ones that will invest in bricks and mortar and will create the jobs. If we create them here, it is not the job most Americans want. If we allow the private sector to create those jobs, the future of every child in this country is unlimited, only controlled by their commitment and their willingness.

Let's make sure our investment is to make sure our policies support the private sector, our programs help the American people, and that we don't fuel the economy fictitiously by proposing that the Federal Government can increase spending and, in fact, balance it on the backs of a select few. It will be like every other tax increase. We will balance it on the backs of Americans who cannot afford any more taxes.

I yield the floor.