Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I introduce the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act of 2008. This measure would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase, effective December 1, 2008, the rates of veterans' compensation to keep pace with the rising cost-of-living in this country. The rate adjustment is equal to that provided on an annual basis to Social Security recipients and is based on the Consumer Price Index. Several of my colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including Ranking Member Burr, and Senators Rockefeller, Murray, Obama, Sanders, Brown, Webb, Tester, Craig, and Isakson join me in introducing this important legislation. I appreciate their continued support of our Nation's veterans. Congress regularly enacts an annual cost-of-living adjustment for veterans' compensation in order to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of the veterans and their families who depend upon this income to meet their daily needs. This past year Congress passed, and the President signed into law, Public Law 110-111, which resulted in a COLA increase of 2.3 percent for 2008. The 2009 projected COLA increase is 2.5 percent. The COLA affects, among other benefits, veterans' disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children. Many of the more than 3 million recipients of those benefits depend upon these tax-free payments not only to provide for their own basic needs, but those of their spouses and children as well. Without an annual COLA increase, these veterans and their families would see the value of their hard-earned benefits slowly diminish, and we, as a Congress, would be neglecting our duty to ensure that those who sacrificed so much for this country receive the benefits and services to which they are entitled. It is important that we view veterans' compensation, including the annual COLA, and indeed all benefits earned by veterans, as a continuing cost of war. It is clear that the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to result in injuries and disabilities that will yield an increase in claims for compensation. Currently, there are more than 2.8 million veterans in receipt of VA disability compensation. Disbursement of disability compensation to our Nation's veterans constitutes one of the central missions of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is a necessary measure of appreciation afforded to those veterans whose lives were forever altered by their service to this country. I urge our colleagues to support passage of this COLA increase. I also ask our colleagues for their continued support for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I introduce the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act of 2008. This measure would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase, effective December 1, 2008, the rates of veterans' compensation to keep pace with the rising cost-of-living in this country. The rate adjustment is equal to that provided on an annual basis to Social Security recipients and is based on the Consumer Price Index. Several of my colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including Ranking Member Burr, and Senators Rockefeller, Murray, Obama, Sanders, Brown, Webb, Tester, Craig, and Isakson join me in introducing this important legislation. I appreciate their continued support of our Nation's veterans. Congress regularly enacts an annual cost-of-living adjustment for veterans' compensation in order to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of the veterans and their families who depend upon this income to meet their daily needs. This past year Congress passed, and the President signed into law, Public Law 110-111, which resulted in a COLA increase of 2.3 percent for 2008. The 2009 projected COLA increase is 2.5 percent. The COLA affects, among other benefits, veterans' disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children. Many of the more than 3 million recipients of those benefits depend upon these tax-free payments not only to provide for their own basic needs, but those of their spouses and children as well. Without an annual COLA increase, these veterans and their families would see the value of their hard-earned benefits slowly diminish, and we, as a Congress, would be neglecting our duty to ensure that those who sacrificed so much for this country receive the benefits and services to which they are entitled. It is important that we view veterans' compensation, including the annual COLA, and indeed all benefits earned by veterans, as a continuing cost of war. It is clear that the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to result in injuries and disabilities that will yield an increase in claims for compensation. Currently, there are more than 2.8 million veterans in receipt of VA disability compensation. Disbursement of disability compensation to our Nation's veterans constitutes one of the central missions of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is a necessary measure of appreciation afforded to those veterans whose lives were forever altered by their service to this country. I urge our colleagues to support passage of this COLA increase. I also ask our colleagues for their continued support for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, in the year 1924, a child was born to a woman who was nurtured by a Hawaiian family. He was born in Hawaii as an American of Japanese ancestry. He was brought up in Hawaii and went to school there, graduated from McKinley High School in 1942, and decided to serve our country, as he did. You have heard others tell about his activities as an Army person. But he went on to finally receive the Medal of Honor from this country, which is the greatest medal anyone can receive. This is Senator Dan Inouye. When he finished his service, he used the GI bill, of which he was a recipient, to be educated. When he returned to Hawaii, he entered into politics and served in the State legislature. When Hawaii became a State in 1959, he was Hawaii's first U.S. House of Representatives Member. It was from there he did run for the Senate and was elected and has been here since that time. Dan Inouye has served our country well over these years, and he has served Hawaii well. So today I rise to mark a historic occasion, which is Senator Inouye's 15,000th vote. This historic milestone is compelling evidence of Senator Inouye's devotion to public service. The people of Hawaii have given him their trust, and in return he has fought relentlessly for our State and our country. Dan Inouye is an institution, without question, in the Senate, and I look forward to casting many more votes with my good friend and mentor and brother to benefit Hawaii and strengthen the United States. God bless you, Senator Inouye, and with much aloha. Thank you very much.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I am pleased to support the Senate's bipartisan legislation designed to stimulate the economy and benefit working families, assist seniors and veterans, provide some relief for the unemployed, and encourage business and energy investments. I know that there are numerous families throughout the Nation who have found themselves working harder and having less discretionary income due to increases in living expenses such as gasoline and food costs. In my home state of Hawaii where the cost of living is already high, especially due to housing, families are struggling. they, like the rest of the Nation, have been hit hard by the decline in the economy. While Hawaii's unemployment is not as high as in other parts of the Nation. it is not uncommon for individuals in Hawaii to work two or three jobs just to provide their families with food and shelter and to have multiple generations living under the same roof in order to save money. One of the key provisions of the Senate's economic stimulus package is to put money in the hands of low-income and middle-class individuals and families by offering a rebate of $500 per individual and $1000 per couple, plus $300 for every child under the age of 17. For the many families in this Nation struggling to make ends meet, these rebates will help ease the financial pressures they are currently facing. Far too often, due to the downturn in our Nation's economy, families are finding that they simply cannot afford important, basic needs. Consequently, they are forced to make very difficult decisions and even more difficult sacrifices. More and more Americans are relying on high- interest credit cards, not to buy luxuries but just to provide daily necessities. The rebates included in the Senate package will help families pay down those bills and provide much needed financial relief. The Senate Finance Committee's package also improves upon the House- passed bill by extending these rebates to senior citizens and disabled veterans. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, I am strongly supportive of provisions in this bill that improve the House version of the bill by including hundreds of thousands of disabled vets in the stimulus package. It is vitally important that we ensure that our Nation's wounded warriors and their families who have sacrificed so much are given the assistance they need. I am pleased to support the extension of benefits in the Senate Finance bill to 20 million senior citizens living on Social Security. For many low-income senior citizens, whose sole income is their monthly Social Security check, a rebate check could provide much needed relief in addition to providing further stimulus to the country's economy. In addition to the rebates included in the Finance Committee package, another important provision is the extension of unemployment benefits. I know that for many workers who have found themselves out of jobs due to layoffs or business failures, unemployment benefits provide a much- needed bridge to get them over the immediate economic financial crises until they can find employment. Providing an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits for individuals who have been caught in the economic downturn and another 13 weeks of benefits for workers in states with high rates of unemployment will go a long way toward providing the support they need as they look for new jobs in this difficult economic environment. I am also supportive of provisions in the Senate economic stimulus package that will encourage businesses to invest. Increasing the carryback period for net operating losses from 2 to 5 years, for example, will benefit the housing industry by allowing builders to avoid selling land and houses at greatly reduced prices and enable less costly financing. In addition, provisions to extend renewable energy and energy efficiency tax cuts for a year will help boost the economy by generating new employment opportunities. Given the growing demand for energy coupled with rising prices, it is critical to America's economy that we provide incentives to invest in clean energy production. As the Senate considers this bill, I will continue to work to ensure that the economic stimulus package passed by Congress is structured to help hard-working men and women who find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. We must see that a broad segment of the population, including the unemployed, senior citizens, and disabled veterans, receives assistance and that business and environmental investment is encouraged. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting the Senate version of the economic stimulus package.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I wish to highlight a recent undercover video produced by the Humane Society of the United States. This video displays the appalling methods used by employees at the California-based Hallmark Meat Packing Company during the processing of cattle, as well as the unacceptable state of USDA's oversight of meat packing operations. The video documents horrifying scenes of employees using electrical prods to shock animals, pulling them with chains, and carelessly driving over them with a forklift in an effort to bring sick or injured cows to their feet. These cruel actions amount to nothing less than torture. There was even a case of using a hose to forcibly spray water into a cow's nose to get it to rise to its feet to avoid the sensation of drowning. Currently, the State of California has laws in place that specifically prohibit the kinds of activities taking place at Hallmark. In addition, because of the health hazards associated with so-called ``downer'' cattle, which are those unable to stand and walk due to either injury or illness, USDA in 2003 passed a regulation prohibiting the processing of such animals. According to USDA's own reports, there is a much higher incidence of mad cow disease in these animals, and they are also much more susceptible to pathogens like E. coli and salmonella. The actions of this slaughterhouse, and possibly countless others, in violation of established laws, have put our most vulnerable and important assets in danger our--children. The animals processed by this facility are supplied to the Westland Meat Company, which is the second-largest provider of beef to USDA's Commodity Procurement Branch. This arm of USDA distributes the meat to needy families and also to more than 100,000 schools across America through the National School Lunch Program. I shudder when I think of how many other of the Nation's 6,200 slaughterhouses could be evading oversight and endangering the lives of countless Americans. The two daily scheduled USDA inspections at the Hallmark facility are obviously no deterrent to the abhorrent practices being performed there. In fact, the very short and superficial nature of the inspections serve to encourage workers to do anything they can to bring a sick animal to its feet just long enough to pass inspection before being slaughtered. In order to ensure the safety of our Nation's food supply, ensure animals are treated humanely and with respect, and protect our families and children from possible life-threatening illnesses, we must act. Atrocities such as those exposed by the Humane Society must be swiftly abolished, and effective oversight measures put in place immediately. USDA needs to shore up inspections, hold slaughterhouses accountable and uphold food safety standards, and ensure that cattle and dairy farmers are aware that nonambulatory cattle will not be accepted for processing. It is also imperative that we, Congress, ensure that downer livestock is unable to enter our food chain, and the best way to accomplish this task is to codify the prohibition of downer livestock from entering our food supply. I introduced S. 394, the Downed Animal and Food Safety Protection Act, to fill a gap in the current USDA and the Food and Drug Administration regulations. It calls for the humane euthanization of nonambulatory livestock. The euthanization of nonambulatory livestock would remove this high-risk population from the portion of livestock reserved for our consumption. Due to the presence of other prion diseases found throughout other species of livestock, all animals that fit under the definition of livestock are included in this bill. The benefits of my bill are numerous, for both the public and the industry. On the face of it, the bill will prevent needless suffering by humanely euthanizing nonambulatory animals. The removal of downed animals from our food chain will insure that it is safer and of better quality. The reduction in the likelihood of disease would result in safer working conditions for persons handling livestock. This added protection against disease would help the flow of livestock and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce, making commerce in livestock more easily attainable. We must act now and call upon USDA to make the necessary changes to ensure that the atrocities demonstrated at this slaughterhouse are not repeated elsewhere. In addition, I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Downed Animal and Food Safety Protection Act.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the accomplishments and good work of the Federal Executive Boards, FEBs, across the country. FEBs bring together Federal agencies outside of the Washington, DC metropolitan area to better serve the community. Federal Executive Boards were established in 10 major regions across the country by President John Kennedy in 1961 as a way for Federal agencies outside of Washington to communicate with each other and address local issues affecting the Federal employee community. Since then, they have grown to include 28 metropolitan areas and serve hundreds of thousands of Federal employees. The boards are made up of senior officials from each Federal agency in a given geographic region. They are quasi-agencies that receive voluntary funding from local Federal agencies in the region. They operate with a lean structure of one or two staff members who create partnerships between the Federal, State, and local governments to achieve common goals. FEBs also offer training workshops, coordinate preparedness exercises, and disseminate information on office closures. I am very proud to have a strong and active FEB in Honolulu that serves the Federal agencies in the Pacific. To this extent, earlier this fall, I held a hearing on the role FEBs can play in preparing Federal communities for a pandemic influenza outbreak. Many public health experts believe that we are overdue for a pandemic outbreak, and the question is not a matter of if, but when. In this effort, I asked the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the work of FEBs in preparing their constituency for a pandemic outbreak. What I found was a lot of dedicated individuals building partnerships and developing procedures to prepare for a public health, natural, or manmade emergency. They are doing important work, but they are operating without a lot of resources. Because of their natural role in communicating with and coordinating Federal agencies, emergency preparedness and response has become a central component to the mission and activities of FEBs. For example, the Honolulu-Pacific FEB, which serves my home State of Hawaii, is a resource for emergency response plans, pandemic influenza preparedness, and continuity of operations plans. Similarly, the Minnesota Federal Executive Board has taken to heart the need for better coordination with State, local, and private partners in the event of a pandemic or other emergency, and it has organized a number of emergency training exercises that bring together these partners. Unfortunately, not all FEBs have the resources or support to be so active. At the hearing earlier this fall, the representatives from the FEBs testified to the instability of their funding and the difficulty in planning events without a known budget. The Executive Directors make do with what they are given, but often that is not much. The Office of Personnel Management oversees the FEBs and has been working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to develop a strategic plan that would address funding, performance standards, and provide guidance to FEBs on their role in the event of an emergency. OPM is hoping to produce the plan early next year, and I anxiously await its release. The more support we can provide them, the more effective our federal agencies will be. I would like to commend the work being done by FEBs, especially the Honolulu-Pacific FEB, and I will continue to support their efforts to build a strong Federal community.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP Extension Act of 2007. I appreciate the hard work and leadership of Senators Baucus and Grassley in putting together this important legislation that will improve Medicare reimbursements, extend the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and extend other important Medicare and Medicaid policies. In addition, this legislation includes a provision that extends Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, DSH, allotments for Hawaii and Tennessee for another 6 months. Medicaid DSH resources help support hospitals that care for significant numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients. Hawaii and Tennessee are the only two States that do not have permanent DSH allotments. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created specific DSH allotments for each State based on their actual DSH expenditures for fiscal year 1995. In 1994, Hawaii implemented the QUEST demonstration program that was designed to reduce the number of uninsured and improve access to health care. The prior Medicaid DSH program was incorporated into QUEST. As a result of the demonstration program, Hawaii did not have DSH expenditures in 1995 and was not provided a DSH allotment. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 made further changes to the DSH program, which included the establishment of a floor for DSH allotments. However, States without allotments were again left out. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 made additional changes in the DSH program. This included an increase in DSH allotments for low DSH States. Again, States without allotments were left out. In the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, DSH allotments were finally provided for Hawaii and Tennessee for 2007. The act included a $10 million Medicaid DSH allotment for Hawaii for 2007. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 will extend the DSH allotments for Hawaii and Tennessee for an additional 6 months. This extension authorizes the submission by the State of Hawaii of a State plan amendment covering a DSH payment methodology to hospitals which is consistent with the requirements of existing law relating to DSH payments. The purpose of providing a DSH allotment for Hawaii is to provide additional funding to the State of Hawaii to permit a greater contribution toward the uncompensated costs of hospitals that are providing indigent care. It is not meant to alter existing arrangements between the State of Hawaii and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, or to reduce in any way the level of Federal funding for Hawaii's QUEST program. I look forward to continuing to work with Senators Alexander, Corker, and Inouye to permanently restore allotments for Hawaii and Tennessee. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for all of their efforts on this legislation and for their support on this issue of great importance.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation that provides for the establishment of a memorial within Kalaupapa National Historical Park, in the State of Hawaii, to honor and perpetuate the memory of those Hansen's disease patients who were forcibly relocated to the Kalaupapa Peninsula from 1866 to 1969. This tragedy began in 1865 when the Kingdom of Hawai`i instituted a century-long policy of forced segregation of those afflicted with Hansen's disease, also known as leprosy. Land was set aside in order to seclude those who were thought to be capable of spreading the disease. Kalaupapa was chosen due to its' isolated and inaccessible location. To the south, Kalaupapa faces sheer cliffs with over 2,000 feet in height. To the east, north, and west, Kalaupapa is surrounded by an often- temperamental ocean. During this period of time, over 8,000 people were sent there, of which, only about 1,300 graves have been identified. Most of those who were sent to Kalaupapa before 1900 have no marked graves. Others were buried in places marked with a cross or a bare tombstone, but those markers have seen great deterioration over time. As a result, there are many family members and descendants of these residents who cannot find the graves of their loved ones and are unable to properly honor and pay tribute to them. This monument is to provide closure and a sense of belonging to these many family members, who have no knowledge of their ancestors' whereabouts. Through this monument, the more than 8,000 Hansen's disease patients will forever be memorialized as having been a part of the history of Kalaupapa. It also allows the world to recognize and learn from the tragedy that took place on Kalaupapa, where mothers were taken from their children, husbands from their wives, and children from their parents. There are a few remaining patients of Kalaupapa alive today, and time is running short. For them to live to see this monument, and the memory of their friends and those that preceded them honored in this manner, would mean so much. It will help to guarantee that the legacy of Kalaupapa will live on, and continue to be passed from one generation to the next.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation expressing the sense of the Congress that States should enact joint custody laws for fit parents, so that more children are raised with the benefit of having both parents in their lives. One of the most significant problems facing our Nation today is the number of children being raised without the love and support of both parents. Even if it is not possible for the parents to remain in a committed partnership, it is important that, when possible, each parent, as well as their extended families, have every opportunity to play an active role in their children's life. A number of recent studies have suggested that children greatly benefit from joint custody or shared parenting arrangements. In my own home State of Hawaii, it is a way of life to have our keiki, or children, raised and nurtured by the extended family, and we have seen how our children flourish when the responsibility of child rearing is shared. This Nation's children are our most vital resource, and every effort should be made to ensure that they receive the guidance and encouragement they need to thrive. I urge States to pass joint custody laws for fit parents so all children can be raised within the extended embrace of both parents and their families.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation that provides for the establishment of a memorial within Kalaupapa National Historical Park, in the State of Hawaii, to honor and perpetuate the memory of those Hansen's disease patients who were forcibly relocated to the Kalaupapa Peninsula from 1866 to 1969. This tragedy began in 1865 when the Kingdom of Hawai`i instituted a century-long policy of forced segregation of those afflicted with Hansen's disease, also known as leprosy. Land was set aside in order to seclude those who were thought to be capable of spreading the disease. Kalaupapa was chosen due to its' isolated and inaccessible location. To the south, Kalaupapa faces sheer cliffs with over 2,000 feet in height. To the east, north, and west, Kalaupapa is surrounded by an often- temperamental ocean. During this period of time, over 8,000 people were sent there, of which, only about 1,300 graves have been identified. Most of those who were sent to Kalaupapa before 1900 have no marked graves. Others were buried in places marked with a cross or a bare tombstone, but those markers have seen great deterioration over time. As a result, there are many family members and descendants of these residents who cannot find the graves of their loved ones and are unable to properly honor and pay tribute to them. This monument is to provide closure and a sense of belonging to these many family members, who have no knowledge of their ancestors' whereabouts. Through this monument, the more than 8,000 Hansen's disease patients will forever be memorialized as having been a part of the history of Kalaupapa. It also allows the world to recognize and learn from the tragedy that took place on Kalaupapa, where mothers were taken from their children, husbands from their wives, and children from their parents. There are a few remaining patients of Kalaupapa alive today, and time is running short. For them to live to see this monument, and the memory of their friends and those that preceded them honored in this manner, would mean so much. It will help to guarantee that the legacy of Kalaupapa will live on, and continue to be passed from one generation to the next.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, today I was pleased to vote in favor of passage of the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. This significant legislation will provide much needed funding for the brave men and women currently serving in our armed forces and includes critically important language addressing the needs and care of returning servicemembers. The provisions dealing with care at VA are a direct outcome of the close collaboration that has occurred between the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee. It was a pleasure to work with Chairman Levin of the Armed Services Committee and others on this key legislation to help our Nation's servicemembers and veterans. It contains provisions drawn from legislation which was reported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee to the full Senate in late August, legislation that we have been seeking final passage of for many months now. A substantial portion of these provisions seek to address what has become the signature wound of this conflict: traumatic brain injury. While attempting to meet the immediate needs of veterans with TBI for high-quality care at VA and subsequent rehabilitation in their communities, it would also provide VA clinicians with increased resources to develop the expertise and the capacity to meet the lifelong needs of these veterans. First, VA would be required to develop a comprehensive rehabilitation and community reintegration plan for each veteran with TBI, to be implemented by a team of clinicians with appropriate expertise. The veteran, or the veteran's caregiver, would also have the opportunity to request a review of the rehabilitation plan, to ensure adequate responsiveness to individual concerns. These provisions stem from testimony from family members and advocates at the Veterans' Affairs Committee's March 27, 2007, hearing on transition issues and care for returning servicemembers. Second, to better meet the need of veterans who reside in areas that are not close to any of VA's five major polytrauma centers, the provisions in this bill would authorize the use of non-VA facilities, when VA lacks the capacity to provide treatment or the veteran lives too far away to make VA treatment feasible. VA's lead polytrauma centers have significant expertise in rehabilitative care, but in other locations specialized rehabilitative care is frequently unavailable in VA facilities. Third, veterans with severe TBI often end up in nursing home care. This bill would require VA to provide ``age-appropriate'' care to these younger veterans who are severely wounded but who sometimes end up in end-of-life care environments. Additionally, the bill would give VA providers the ability to work with the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center to conduct research and treatment to potentially ``re- awaken'' some veterans with more severe TBI, who may still be able to achieve some level of cognitive recovery. Finally, in response to the needs of veterans with TBI who are unable to manage routine activities of daily living, this bill would require VA to establish programs to maximize veterans' independence, quality of life, and community reintegration. It would also establish an assisted living pilot program for those with TBI. This would expand options to assist veterans who might otherwise be forced into institutional long- term care. One of the cornerstones of this section of the bill extends the period of automatic eligibility for VA health care. Under current law, any active-duty servicemember who is discharged or separated from active duty following deployment to a theater of combat, including members of the Guard and Reserve, is eligible for VA health care for a 2-year period. This bill would extend the period to 5 years. A greater period of eligibility is essential for two primary reasons: protection from budget cuts and ensured access to care for issues that may not be apparent immediately upon separation from active duty, such as invisible wounds. In recent years, veterans with lower priority ratings have been denied care due to budget delays and cuts through the legislative and appropriations process. Combat veterans deserve 5 years of guaranteed health care immediately following discharge. Two years is often insufficient time for symptoms of PTSD and other mental illnesses to manifest. These invisible wounds are often not apparent until 3 or 4 years after discharge, and servicemembers frequently delay treatment until their issues become serious. Studies indicate that up to 30 percent of OIF/OEF veterans will require some form of mental health or readjustment service. Over 1.5 million Americans have served in those theaters of combat, and about 750,000 are currently eligible for VA health care. Extended eligibility will smooth their transition to civilian life. To further improve a timely response to veterans' mental health needs, this bill would require VA to provide a mental health examination within 30 days of the veteran's request. Senator Obama has done excellent work on this provision, and I thank him for his efforts. Past wars have shown that delaying mental health care makes recovery far more challenging. In addition, this bill improves outreach to members of the National Guard and Reserves. The Reserve forces have been used in the current conflicts on an unprecedented scale. It is essential that VA include them in their outreach efforts upon demobilization. This bill would specifically include them in VA's definition of outreach. This change acknowledges the central role played by the Guard and Reserve. In addition to the vital veterans-related legislation included in this bill, as a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management support, I am pleased that this bill provides troops with the equipment and facilities they need, as well as strengthens the oversight and management of the Defense Department. This includes the incorporation of the Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act and the establishment of a full-time Chief Management Officer and Deputy Chief Management Officer. I am especially pleased that the conference report repeals the Department of Defense's authority to establish a new labor relations system under the National Security Personnel System, NSPS, and restores collective bargaining and appeals rights. The original NSPS legislation stripped Federal employees of their basic rights and protections. I so vehemently opposed these provisions that I voted against the Defense Authorization conference report creating NSPS. I am glad that Congress has decided to restore these fundamental rights and protections to employees who work every day to secure our Nation. Once again, let me congratulate the members of the House and Senate for their passage of this bill and I urge the President to sign this crucial legislation into law.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend and distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing S. 2471, the proposed USERRA Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007. This measure is intended to make substantial improvements in the manner in which claims made under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994--USERRA--are processed and to help ensure that individuals' complaints are addressed in a prompt and efficient manner. Our troops are returning home from battle, and many of them seek to return to the jobs that they held prior to their military service, particularly those serving in Guard and Reserve units. USERRA, which is set forth in chapter 43 of title 38, U.S. Code, provides these servicemembers with certain protections. USERRA also sets out certain responsibilities for employers, including to reemploy returning veterans in their previous jobs. As Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I held two hearings earlier this year on issues relating to veterans' employment, including one focusing exclusively on the pilot project for processing USERRA claims in the Federal sector and the jurisdictional questions involving the Department of Labor and the Office of Special Counsel. I must admit to being particularly upset with the volume of USERRA claims related to Federal service. It is simply wrong that individuals who were sent to war by their Government should, upon their return, be put in the position of having to do battle with that same Government in order to regain their jobs and benefits. Out of those hearings, and an oversight hearing held by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, chaired by Senator Kennedy, we have learned a great deal about the manner in which USERRA claims are investigated, resolved, or referred to other appropriate entities for enforcement actions. By and large, the process is seamless and frequently involves employer education in terms of helping them understand their obligations under the law. Still too often, many claims are quite complicated and involve what are sometimes called ``escalator claims,'' where an individual is seeking to be re-instated in a position with quite complicated benefits, seniority, health care and fiduciary issues. I believe that anytime an individual is denied their USERRA rights is one time too many. However, I understand that the confusion and misunderstanding that can exist for the employer-- particularly a small employer or one who may only have one employee who is a member of the Guard or reserve--can be frustrating. The legislation we are introducing today seeks to establish reasonable time frames for the USERRA process. When veterans turn to the government to protect their employment rights, they deserve solutions, not delays. It is my hope that this legislation will assist the federal government in protecting the employment rights of veterans. Our legislation would, in brief, require those filing complaints to be notified within 5 days of the establishment of a claim, require that complaints be investigated and a decision made with respect to the need for further referral within 90 days, and require prompt referral to other agencies. The Government Accountability Office would be required to submit quarterly reports on the processing of claims. Finally, data collected by the Employers' Support of the Guard and Reserve, a voluntary organization within the Department of Defense, would be required to be included in the Secretary of Labor's annual report on USERRA. With respect to this ESRG reporting requirement, it should be noted that this provision has already passed both bodies in the context of the pending conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, and it is included here in the event that legislation is not enacted. I stress that our goal is to improve the current process. We want in no way to place strictures on the program that might result in less than satisfactory consideration and pursuit of claims. I intend to pursue the concerns of all of those involved in these claims--the Departments of Labor, Defense, and Justice, the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of the Special Counsel--through the legislative process in the next session. Should the need for refinements in the measure as it is introduced today become apparent, they will be carefully considered. I know that the Senator from Massachusetts will join me in that endeavor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend and distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing S. 2471, the proposed USERRA Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007. This measure is intended to make substantial improvements in the manner in which claims made under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994--USERRA--are processed and to help ensure that individuals' complaints are addressed in a prompt and efficient manner. Our troops are returning home from battle, and many of them seek to return to the jobs that they held prior to their military service, particularly those serving in Guard and Reserve units. USERRA, which is set forth in chapter 43 of title 38, U.S. Code, provides these servicemembers with certain protections. USERRA also sets out certain responsibilities for employers, including to reemploy returning veterans in their previous jobs. As Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I held two hearings earlier this year on issues relating to veterans' employment, including one focusing exclusively on the pilot project for processing USERRA claims in the Federal sector and the jurisdictional questions involving the Department of Labor and the Office of Special Counsel. I must admit to being particularly upset with the volume of USERRA claims related to Federal service. It is simply wrong that individuals who were sent to war by their Government should, upon their return, be put in the position of having to do battle with that same Government in order to regain their jobs and benefits. Out of those hearings, and an oversight hearing held by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, chaired by Senator Kennedy, we have learned a great deal about the manner in which USERRA claims are investigated, resolved, or referred to other appropriate entities for enforcement actions. By and large, the process is seamless and frequently involves employer education in terms of helping them understand their obligations under the law. Still too often, many claims are quite complicated and involve what are sometimes called ``escalator claims,'' where an individual is seeking to be re-instated in a position with quite complicated benefits, seniority, health care and fiduciary issues. I believe that anytime an individual is denied their USERRA rights is one time too many. However, I understand that the confusion and misunderstanding that can exist for the employer-- particularly a small employer or one who may only have one employee who is a member of the Guard or reserve--can be frustrating. The legislation we are introducing today seeks to establish reasonable time frames for the USERRA process. When veterans turn to the government to protect their employment rights, they deserve solutions, not delays. It is my hope that this legislation will assist the federal government in protecting the employment rights of veterans. Our legislation would, in brief, require those filing complaints to be notified within 5 days of the establishment of a claim, require that complaints be investigated and a decision made with respect to the need for further referral within 90 days, and require prompt referral to other agencies. The Government Accountability Office would be required to submit quarterly reports on the processing of claims. Finally, data collected by the Employers' Support of the Guard and Reserve, a voluntary organization within the Department of Defense, would be required to be included in the Secretary of Labor's annual report on USERRA. With respect to this ESRG reporting requirement, it should be noted that this provision has already passed both bodies in the context of the pending conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, and it is included here in the event that legislation is not enacted. I stress that our goal is to improve the current process. We want in no way to place strictures on the program that might result in less than satisfactory consideration and pursuit of claims. I intend to pursue the concerns of all of those involved in these claims--the Departments of Labor, Defense, and Justice, the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of the Special Counsel--through the legislative process in the next session. Should the need for refinements in the measure as it is introduced today become apparent, they will be carefully considered. I know that the Senator from Massachusetts will join me in that endeavor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, for the last few weeks, the administration has increased its rhetoric about a looming budget shortfall at the Department of Defense unless Congress passes an emergency spending bill. Most recently, the President threatened to lay off hundreds of thousands of Federal workers at DoD to make up for any shortfalls. This is simply unacceptable. The Pentagon said as late as last week that the Department has sufficient funds in order to keep our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan supplied through late February to mid-March of next year. Nonetheless, the administration continues to threaten to layoff workers to make up for a non-existent gap in funding. The Department of Defense should not use Federal employees as pawns because the White House is playing politics with the budget. As Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Oversight of Government Management and Federal Workforce Subcommittee and the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I have made oversight Government contracting a priority. In several hearings, I have heard officials and whistleblowers testify about the systemic waste, fraud and abuse, in many contracts. If the administration wants to save money, it should start increasing oversight over contracts and drop those that are not performing. Rather than increasing their efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in contracting that costs us billions every year, this administration would rather lay off patriotic civilian Federal employees who have dedicated their careers to the Federal Government. The Federal Government is already facing looming crisis in retirements and is working hard to recruit new workers to fill vacancies. Using Federal workers to make a political statement is wrong. It sends a negative message to prospective employees and hurts recruitment efforts in the long run. Instead of looking to cut the Federal workforce to save money, the President should be holding contractors accountable to reduce costs and ensure that our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan have the supplies they need. Today, I am introducing a bill that would send a clear message to the administration that Federal workers are not bargaining chips. The idea behind this legislation is simple, rather than laying off Federal workers to close a budget shortfall, the Pentagon should suspend contracts for non-essential services. Many service contractors work side-by-side with Federal workers. There is no reason that Federal workers should get a pink slip for Christmas while the Pentagon continues to spend millions on contractors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, for the last few weeks, the administration has increased its rhetoric about a looming budget shortfall at the Department of Defense unless Congress passes an emergency spending bill. Most recently, the President threatened to lay off hundreds of thousands of Federal workers at DoD to make up for any shortfalls. This is simply unacceptable. The Pentagon said as late as last week that the Department has sufficient funds in order to keep our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan supplied through late February to mid-March of next year. Nonetheless, the administration continues to threaten to layoff workers to make up for a non-existent gap in funding. The Department of Defense should not use Federal employees as pawns because the White House is playing politics with the budget. As Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Oversight of Government Management and Federal Workforce Subcommittee and the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I have made oversight Government contracting a priority. In several hearings, I have heard officials and whistleblowers testify about the systemic waste, fraud and abuse, in many contracts. If the administration wants to save money, it should start increasing oversight over contracts and drop those that are not performing. Rather than increasing their efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in contracting that costs us billions every year, this administration would rather lay off patriotic civilian Federal employees who have dedicated their careers to the Federal Government. The Federal Government is already facing looming crisis in retirements and is working hard to recruit new workers to fill vacancies. Using Federal workers to make a political statement is wrong. It sends a negative message to prospective employees and hurts recruitment efforts in the long run. Instead of looking to cut the Federal workforce to save money, the President should be holding contractors accountable to reduce costs and ensure that our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan have the supplies they need. Today, I am introducing a bill that would send a clear message to the administration that Federal workers are not bargaining chips. The idea behind this legislation is simple, rather than laying off Federal workers to close a budget shortfall, the Pentagon should suspend contracts for non-essential services. Many service contractors work side-by-side with Federal workers. There is no reason that Federal workers should get a pink slip for Christmas while the Pentagon continues to spend millions on contractors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs I have tried to advance two pieces of legislation--the Veterans' Traumatic Brain Injury and Other Health Programs Improvement Act of 2007 and S. 1315, the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. Once again, Members on the other side are objecting to moving forward with these bills--they are setting up a procedural roadblock. These bills deserve to be heard and debated and discussed, and I welcome that, but Republicans will not allow that to happen. Let me make that point again--we are only asking for debate. Not for the immediate passage of the bills that the Senate simply pass the bills as reported by the committee. Surely it is not too much to ask that the Senate be allowed to do its business. Earlier today, the former ranking member of the committee, Senator Larry Craig, made the latest objection for himself and for the Republican leadership. This is new territory for a VA bill. When Senator Craig was chairman of the committee, he and I negotiated on a variety of legislative initiatives leading up to our markup but could not reach agreement on a number of matters. At the markup, I offered amendments on a number of the issues about which I had strong feelings. I did not, however, continue to pursue those matters on the floor. And I most assuredly did not do anything to block Senate consideration of the legislation that I had sought to amend. In fact, as ranking member, I worked with then- chairman Craig to gain passage of the legislation by unanimous consent. There is much in S. 1233, the committee's omnibus VA health bill, that needs to be enacted, like an increase in the reimbursement rate for veterans who must travel long distances for VA care, and vital provisions to help veterans from becoming homeless. Never, in my memory, have we let a disagreement on one provision stand in the way of passing a legislative package, especially at such a critical time. Senator Craig feels most strongly about allowing middle-income veterans to enroll for VA health care. In 2003, the Bush administration shut the doors to these veterans, and since that time, hundreds of thousands of veterans have been turned away. I want to be clear that these veterans are not asking for a free ride. Indeed, they will be required to make copayments for their care. What they are asking for is entry into the system. We estimate that 1.3 million veterans want this opportunity. And some in this body are standing in their way. Many veterans have been denied VA health care under the current ban. Take, for example, California, where over 22,500 veterans have been denied enrollment; or Texas, where 23,800 have been denied access since 2003. This phenomenon is not limited to the larger States--17,000 veterans in Pennsylvania; 12,300 in Illinois; 36,000 in Florida; and over 14,000 in North Carolina have all been denied VA health care. Also, I want to clarify that we are not talking about allowing veterans with ``upper-income'' entry into VA care. While the administration, and some of my colleagues, characterize Priority 8 veterans as ``higher-income,'' that is not necessarily the case. The current income eligibility threshold for VA health care is under $28,000 a year--which can hardly be classified as a ``high-income'' salary. In my home State of Hawaii, where the cost of living is one of the Nation's highest, the average salary for a veteran who has been denied is $39,300 a year. It is not just in Hawaii, but in many other States as well. For example, in South Carolina, the threshold is $31,650 a year; in North Carolina, $32,000 a year is considered low-income. These are not meaningless numbers--the dollar values represent the hard work of veterans who have served honorably and are now earning well below the median income for their area. No, these are not poor veterans. But one devastating illness without health care coverage, and make no mistake about it, they will be impoverished. Many of these veterans do not have any other form of health insurance. A recent study conducted by researchers at Harvard University found that nearly 1.8 million veterans are uninsured. This suggests that there are veterans in Priority 8 who are stuck in the middle between not making enough money to afford their own private insurance and making too much to qualify for VA care. No veteran who served their country honorably should be denied care when they need it because they were fortunate enough not to have been wounded in combat. I also urge Members to read the text of the contested provision relating to Category 8 veterans. If the Secretary of Veterans Affairs sees opening up enrollment as too much of a financial burden, the Secretary could simply publish a decision in the Federal Register to again block these veterans. Congress is not seeking to overstep the Secretary's authority to determine who can come through VA's doors. Finally, Senator Craig calls the inclusion of enrollment for middle- income veterans, a ``last minute'' addition. I say with a smile, that while time does seem to stand still in the Senate, I would remind my colleague that the bill enabling full enrollment was introduced last April, it was the subject of a hearing last May, and was marked up by the committee in June. This is not something that can be characterized as a ``last-minute'' change. Now I turn briefly to address concerns raised about S. 1315, the committee's omnibus veterans benefits legislation. The proposed Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007 is a comprehensive bill that includes benefits for a broad constituency of servicemembers and veterans, particularly those who are service-disabled. Provisions in this bill would also improve benefits for World War II Filipino veterans, virtually all of whom are now in their 80s or 90s. While not providing Filipino veterans living outside the United States with benefits identical to those provided to veterans living in the United States, I am satisfied that the provisions in S. 1315 are equitable and should be adopted. It is important to note that S. 1315 would fix a historical wrong. Filipino veterans served under the command of the United States military during World War II. They were considered by the Veterans' Administration, the predecessor of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to be veterans of the United States military, naval and air service until that status was revoked by the Rescission Acts of 1946. Therefore, as a matter of fundamental fairness and justice, Filipino veterans' benefits should be similar to those of other veterans. Those who oppose the pension provision in S. 1315 argue that the pension that would be provided through this legislation is too high. However, pension benefits are designed to allow wartime veterans and their survivors to live in dignity--above the poverty level. I am satisfied that the levels of pension designated in this bill would allow these veterans to live with such dignity, while finally giving them the recognition that they so richly deserve. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take a good look at the facts surrounding the provisions contained in both S. 1233 and S. 1315 that some on the other side are objecting to, and to realize that opposing these bills on the current basis provided effectively denies valuable and meaningful benefits to our Nation's veterans. In closing, I again stress that all we are seeking is a time agreement that will allow for debate. For those who believe that there are provisions in these two bills that should not be approved by the Senate, offer amendments, debate the merits, let the Senate vote. That is the least we can do as we seek to meet the needs of our Nation's veterans. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of National Pearl Harbor Remembrance day. Earlier today, my good friend and colleague Senator Inhofe and I introduced a Senate Resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding National Pearl Harbor Remembrance day and paying tribute to those servicemembers and civilians who died in the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, as well as the current members of the Pearl Harbor Survivor Association. Today is the 66th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Memorial ceremonies are taking place at the Naval Station Pearl Harbor to commemorate the 66th anniversary of the attack. Later, the dedication ceremony for the new USS Oklahoma Memorial will also take place on Ford Island at Pearl Harbor. The battleship Oklahoma was anchored along Ford Island on December 7, 1941, and suffered the second greatest loss of life during the attack after the USS Arizona. It is the last ship to have been destroyed that fateful day to get its own memorial. Clearly, this memorial is long overdue. Prayers, reflections, and tributes will be offered during each of these ceremonies to honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women who fought and died in the defense of our great country. This 66th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor also marks the beginning of a new commemoration for all of our Nation's fallen, called Old Glory's Journey of Remembrance. The journey begins today with Old Glory being flown over the USS Arizona Memorial. The flag will then be taken to, and flown over, 24 other military memorial sites around the country. The journey culminates in observance of the National Moment of Remembrance on Memorial Day at 3 p.m. local time with Old Glory being flown above the U.S. Capitol. Mr. President, the resolution that I and Senator Inhofe introduced requests that all of my Senate colleagues join together with our fellow Americans in Hawaii and across the Nation to remember and honor the more than 2,400 courageous American sailors, soldiers, and marines who were killed in the raid on Pearl Harbor, as well as to honor those who survived the attack. For those too young to remember 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor is something learned in history books. But to those in Hawaii who, like myself, witnessed the attack, the events of December 7 are a painful, vivid memory, and a personal experience that can never be forgotten. While the Japanese surprise attack was a calamity that forever changed the course of history, our country fought back in the name of justice to preserve our Nation's sacred freedoms. I urge the citizens of this Nation to remember that it was the sacrifices made by ordinary men and women who rallied in defense of freedom, liberty, and the great promise of our democracy that preserved our Nation's freedom and liberty. Their sacrifices represent the greatest heroism and patriotism in the service of our country. Mr. President, I hope that my Senate colleagues will join me today in prayer and remembrance for those courageous men and women who died in Pearl Harbor on that infamous day.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 395, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc; that any statements relating thereto be printed at the appropriate place in the Record as if read.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the University of Hawaii Warrior football team, which completed the first undefeated season in the team's history, securing a first-ever appearance in the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Day. Facing powerful schools from across the country, this dedicated, hard working, selfless team found the courage, strength and discipline to emerge victorious from every challenge. A spirit of support and teamwork, as well as confidence under pressure, made this historic undefeated season possible. In addition to their victories on the field, the Warrior football players have also introduced viewers to the diverse cultures they represent. They have become positive role models for young people not only in Hawaii, but in Samoa, Australia, around the South Pacific and in communities across the United States. They have made many people proud. They honor the people and land of Hawaii before every game. They have shared our unique culture with the world. The Warriors have brought the people of Hawaii together, united in supporting this incredible team that continues to defy the odds. I join the people of Hawaii in congratulating the University of Hawaii Warrior football team and rooting for victory in the Sugar Bowl New Year's Day in New Orleans. As we say in Hawaii, ``Hana Hou,'' do it again! Go Warriors!

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to commend Ed Shinoda for receiving the Organization of Chinese Americans', OCA, Asia Pacific American Corporate Achievement Award. October 19, 2007, he was recognized in Las Vegas, NV, for his work at the United States Parcel Service, UPS, as a Pacific region manager. He has been at UPS since 1975, where he started as a part-time loader. The OCA was founded in 1973 to advance the social, political, and economic well-being of Asian Pacific Americans. With 50 chapters across the Nation, including one in Hawaii, OCA helps citizens achieve their aspirations and improve their lives. The organization also facilitates the development of leadership and involvement in the community. The Asia Pacific American Corporate Achievement Award was given to twelve individuals this year. This national program recognizes the achievements of Asian Pacific Americans in the corporate world, and their service to the community. Those honored were nominated by their employers, and then selected by a panel of judges. Ed is currently the UPS Hawaii Operations Manager and is responsible for all UPS operations in Hawaii. Throughout his time at UPS, Ed has served in various leadership positions and is now one of the highest ranking Asian Pacific Americans at UPS. Ed not only works hard at UPS, but also in the community. He has participated in programs such as Neighbor-to-Neighbor, Global Volunteer Week, and the United Way campaign. In addition to working hard and being involved in the community, Ed also supports fellow Asian Pacific American communities. He has served in organizations such as the Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce, the Honolulu Chamber of Commerce, and the Hong Kong Business Association. He helped found ``A Safe Place,'' an organization which works with children whose parents have been incarcerated. Ed is a hard-working individual, and I wish him and his family a warm aloha and best wishes.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Haleiwa Super Market of Haleiwa, HI, on celebrating its 100-year anniversary. The store was opened by Kasaku Sakai, a Japanese plantation contract worker, and has since been run by four generations of the Sakai family. Since opening in 1907, the store has expanded from a small grocery store to a full service supermarket. The business has changed locations several times in order to accommodate the store's increasing size. It has provided the residents of Haleiwa town with an invaluable resource throughout its many years. For example, during WWII, the store operated by credit, and its customers were not required to pay interest on their outstanding balances. Debts were often forgiven for families that were unable to pay. Now, both tourists and locals stroll the aisles of the Haleiwa Super Market for its fresh produce, fish, wines, and its line of Haleiwa Super Market logo items. For 100 years, the Haleiwa store has remained a family run business. Everyone in the family has contributed to the business since the time they were young. It is now operated by Robert and Roy Sakai. They credit the success of the company to their great employees. People continue to enjoy the Haleiwa Super Market for its friendly employees and family atmosphere. Many people have helped to keep the market a flourishing business, and although we cannot name them all, we honor them through the celebration of the centennial anniversary. Without the support and dedication of the owners, employees, and customers of the Haleiwa Super Market, the store could not have survived these 100 years.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last Thursday, November 8, 2007, the assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin, propounded unanimous consent agreements on two bills reported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee--S. 1233, the proposed ``Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Other Health Programs Improvement Act of 2007'' and S. 1315, the proposed ``Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007.'' Both proposed agreements called for the bills to be considered ``at any time determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader'' and also provided that the only amendments that would be in order would be ``first-degree amendments that are relevant to subject matter of the bill.'' In other words, the request was for the Senate to take up these two bills, ordered reported by the committee in late June and reported in August, at some future time with the only exclusion being that no nonrelevant amendments would be in order. It is hard to think of a more modest request for action on legislation. Unfortunately, my friend and colleague, the former chairman and ranking member of the committee, Senator Craig, objected to both unanimous consent agreements. In explaining his objection, Senator Craig expressed the view that some provisions in the two bills are ``controversial enough to merit considerable floor debate.'' Whether I agree with that characterization of the provisions, I would not seek to keep Senator Craig or any other Senator from debating the two bills. As I just noted, that was precisely what the unanimous consent called for--debate, at a mutually agreed upon time, with the only limitation being that any amendment had to be relevant. Judging by the concerns Senator Craig discussed in his explanation of his objection to the unanimous consent agreement, his amendments would, indeed, be relevant. I was patient while our colleagues on the other side of the aisle dealt with the upheaval that followed the unanticipated change in the minority leadership on the committee. I recognized that they needed time to reorganize and for Senator Burr to move into his new role as the committee's ranking member. However, that change in the ranking member's position occurred over 2 months ago. It is time to bring these bills to the floor, time to engage in a full and open debate, time to vote on any amendments, and time to allow the Senate to have its say on the bills. In his objection, Senator Craig spoke of the committee's history of working in a bipartisan fashion to resolve differences at the committee level. He is certainly correct that our committee rarely brings measures to the floor for debate. However, I do not understand that history to mean that any and all differences of opinion on legislation are resolved before we seek Senate action. Rather, it is my understanding that the committee's bipartisan practice means that we seek to negotiate so as to reach agreed-upon positions on legislation after legislative hearings and before committee markups. When we are unable to reach agreement, there is an opportunity for amendments to be offered during markups. After a markup, our traditional practice has been to move forward from a committee markup without further debate on the floor. That approach is exactly what happened in 2005, when Senator Craig was chairman of the committee. He and I had negotiated on a variety of legislative initiatives up to the markup but could not reach agreement on a number of matters. At the markup, I offered amendments--five or six is my memory--on a number of the issues about which I had strong feelings. I did not, however, continue to pursue those matters on the floor. And I most assuredly did not do anything to block Senate consideration of the legislation that I had sought to amend. In fact, as ranking member, I worked with then-Chairman Craig to gain passage of the legislation by unanimous consent. While I would certainly appreciate similar cooperation with respect to S. 1233 and S. 1315, I realize that Senator Craig and others may wish to continue to pursue amendments during debate before the full Senate, and I am prepared to support that result. All that is needed for that to happen is for agreement to be reached to begin that debate, as set forth in the unanimous consent agreement put forward by Senator Durbin last week. I do not know why others on the other side of the aisle are blocking this debate. I urge them to reconsider and to agree to allow the debate to go forward. Our committee should finish our work. America's veterans deserve no less.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, over the past weekend, our Nation observed Veterans Day, a day to commemorate the connection between the American people and America's veterans. This connection is something that the American people are always aware of at the bottom of their hearts, though it may not always be in the front of our minds as we go about our daily lives. We Americans often define ourselves by the freedoms we enjoy. America's veterans are men and women who sacrificed some of their own freedoms to serve and defend our Nation. The connection between these two groups--the defended and the defenders--may not always be visible, but it cannot be denied. Veterans Day gave us the opportunity to recall that connection, to honor those who wore the uniform of our country. As chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, it has been my privilege to work alongside other leaders in answering a simple question: How do we best honor veterans? Having so recently celebrated Veterans Day, I am pleased to report on the committee's work in the areas of legislation and oversight to try to answer that question. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has worked diligently to fulfill its oversight and legislative responsibilities, demonstrated in part by our hearing and meeting schedule. We have held 40 hearings and meetings, including 7 field hearings, since our organizational meeting in January. The committee has heard from 220 witnesses, and reported 4 nominees to the Senate, each of whom was later confirmed. At our committee's very first meeting, I discussed my agenda to work with other members to bring the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs together to provide a seamless transition for veterans from DOD to VA. We focused on seamless transition and set an agenda to pursue the issue in the coming year. These actions were taken long before the horrible news reports about conditions at Walter Reed shocked the country into action. Our foresight positioned the committee, in collaboration with the Senate Armed Services Committee, to craft legislation that attacked the flaws within the DOD and VA systems. I am pleased that our legislative responses were incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act. I look forward to seeing them become law. Two weeks after the organizational meeting, the committee held its first hearing, which was on VA and DOD cooperation and collaboration. We heard testimony from officials from VA and DOD, as well as the personal stories of veterans who slipped through the cracks during their transition from military service to veterans status. This would be the first of a number of hearings the committee would hold on VA and DOD cooperation and collaboration. Later hearings on this issue focused on specific areas such as health care, education, information technology, and benefits. In February, I contacted DOD on behalf of VA's Polytrauma Center health care providers so as to ensure that VA providers had easy and appropriate access to DOD's Joint Patient Tracking Application. This medical information sharing application is important to data sharing between VA and DOD. I was pleased when DOD responded shortly thereafter, providing assurance that they would resume their important data sharing practices. The decision to focus on cooperation and collaboration between DOD and VA was made well before news broke on the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed. As these news stories moved questions about veterans care into the forefront of America's attention, our committee put our focus on the total system of care, involving DOD and VA. Shortly after the press revelations of problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I visited Walter Reed, along with my good friend and colleague, Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. On the way back to the Capitol from that visit, we agreed to hold an unprecedented joint hearing of the Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committee on the issue of DOD-VA cooperation and collaboration. On April 12, we held that hearing, further pursuing answers both about what was happening at Walter Reed and how we could fix it and about the overall state of the relationship between the two Departments. From that hearing and subsequent work on the problems at Walter Reed and elsewhere in both the DOD and VA systems, and how those problems affected wounded servicemembers, it was clear that a commonsense approach was needed. One specific focus of that effort was on how to reform the DOD disability system so as to promote greater uniformity among the services and between the services and VA. On April 30, I introduced S. 1252, a bill that would mandate a number of changes to the DOD disability evaluation system, including uniform use of the Veterans Affairs rating schedule across the military services, inclusion of all conditions which render a member unfit when making a disability rating, uniform training of Medical Evaluation Board/Physical Evaluation Board personnel, and accountability by DOD to ensure compliance with disability rating regulations and policies. Just as veterans and servicemembers benefit when VA and DOD work together, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate Committee on Armed Services saw an opportunity to collaborate on legislative solutions. All of the provisions of S. 1252 were included as part of S. 1606, the joint SVAC and SASC proposed Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act of 2007, which was later included in the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. While demands on VA have dramatically increased over recent years, VA funding has not. To allow the hard working men and women of VA to do their jobs without having to worry about whether there will be sufficient funding, we have sought a substantial increase to VA funding. I am pleased that the funding level in VA's fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill amounts to the largest funding increase in the history of the Department. The appropriations bill also includes significant increases that will enable the Veterans Benefits Administration to pay for up to 3,100 new full-time employees. I hope the VBA will use these funds to attack the current backlog of veterans' claims aggressively. I will continue to work with my colleagues to enact this historic and long overdue increase in funding for veterans. In working on the legislative front, the committee has taken a collaborative approach with other Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Our focus has been on getting good law enacted, whatever the vehicle. I am pleased to report on the committee's progress on many pieces of legislation, some of which have already been enacted into law. As we continue to pursue adequate funds to pay for the true cost of war, we must also recognize that the nature of the battles our troops are fighting has changed as well. VA health care must be better prepared to address traumatic brain injury, the signature wound of the current war. To improve VA's diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation for traumatic brain injuries, I introduced S. 1233, the proposed Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvements Act of 2007. This bill, amended to include a number of other health care provisions, was reported by the committee. In addition, many of the provisions of S. 1233 were later incorporated into the Wounded Warriors Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. S. 1233 would increase access to VA health care for combat veterans, extending the period of eligibility during which recently released or discharged combat veterans have unfettered access to VA care from 2 to 5 years. This provision will help ensure that these newest combat veterans have more time to identify and deal with invisible wounds, such as traumatic brain injury and PTSD. Another key provision of the bill relating to the treatment of invisible wounds is a requirement that VA provide a servicemember with a mental health evaluation within 30 days of making such a request. S. 1233 also would enhance care for older veterans already in the VA system. It would repeal the 2003 VA regulation which barred Priority 8 veterans, so-called ``higher-income'' veterans, from enrolling in the VA health care system, essentially re-opening the system to these veterans. Many issues have been raised this year with regard to access to VA care for veterans residing in more rural areas, and S. 1233 includes an entire section aimed at looking at ways to increase access for rural veterans. I am also very proud of the provisions in S. 1233 that seek to expand and enhance services for homeless veterans. We all recognize the sad reality that veterans suffer disproportionately from homelessness. S. 1233 would not only increase the resources available to community-based entities that provide reintegration services to those who are already homeless, it would also provide supportive services to low-income veterans to help prevent homelessness. This bill also contains a significant increase in the travel reimbursement benefit paid to certain veterans who are forced to commute long distances to access care at VA facilities. The current mileage reimbursement rate is only 11 cents per mile, and this rate has not been increased since 1978. The committee bill would increase the rate to 28 cents per mile--a substantial increase and one that will hopefully help ease the financial burden for those who have to travel sometimes hundreds of miles to get to a VA hospital or clinic. Two other health care bills that I introduced this year are currently moving through the committee process--S. 2160, the proposed Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007, and S. 2162, the proposed Mental Health Improvements Act of 2007. The committee is scheduled to mark up both of these bills, along with two others, tomorrow. I hope to see each of them passed by the end of this year. For too many veterans, returning home from battle will not bring an end to conflict. They will return home, but the things they have done and seen in combat will follow them. Invisible wounds such as PTSD are complicated and can manifest themselves in many different ways. Studies have estimated that as many as 1 out of every 5 Iraq war veterans are likely to suffer from readjustment issues. It is clear that action is necessary on the part of Congress to ensure that VA is equipped to deal with these issues. In April, the committee held a hearing dedicated to veterans' mental health concerns and VA's response. We heard very compelling testimony from witnesses who suffered the consequences of invisible wounds in their families and their own lives. Randall Omvig spoke of his son's suicide upon returning from Iraq. Tony Bailey spoke of his son's struggle with substance abuse, and of his ultimate death from it. Patrick Campbell shared his own experience with PTSD and the experiences of his fellow servicemembers. Their touching and often painful stories put human faces on an issue that is to often reduced to numbers. The proposed Mental Health Improvements Act is a direct outgrowth of that hearing and the testimony given by those who have suffered with mental health issues and by their family members. The bill addresses the immediate needs of veterans by ensuring high quality mental health services at VA facilities and in their communities. The measure also seeks to address the plight of veterans who suffer both from PTSD and substance abuse. S. 2160, the proposed Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007, would enhance VA's pain management program. It is estimated that nearly 30 percent of Americans--some 86 million people--suffer from chronic or acute pain every year. A recent study conducted by VA researchers in Connecticut found that nearly 50 percent of veteran patients that are seen at VA facilities reported that they experience pain regularly. While pain increases in severity with age, it is also a growing problem among younger veterans who have been injured in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these veterans are coming home with severe injuries--often traumatic brain injuries--that require intensive rehabilitation. In some cases, younger veterans will have to live with the long-term effects of their injuries, of which pain is a large and debilitating part. Pain management is an area of health care that by many accounts is not yet to up to par, in both the private and public sectors. S. 2160 would standardize VA's pain management program on a national, systemwide level, by requiring VA to establish a pain care initiative at every VA health care facility. Every hospital and clinic would be required to employ a professionally recognized pain assessment tool or process, and ensure that every patient who is determined to be in chronic or acute pain is treated appropriately. The bill also calls for comprehensive research on pain management to improve care for chronic pain. During this session, I introduced S. 1163, the proposed Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act of 2007, a bill that would offer enhanced benefits to veterans who suffer from service-connected impairment of vision. The bill was amended in committee and the language that was favorably reported to the full Senate was inserted into H.R. 797, the House companion, and passed on November 2. The Senate-passed H.R. 797 would broaden the benefit eligibility requirements for two distinct groups of veterans with impaired vision due to service--those with service-connected blindness in one eye who subsequently suffer loss of vision in the other eye later in life and those who receive special monthly compensation for multiple disabilities, including vision impairment. The amended bill also includes a series of provisions that would enhance memorial and burial benefits for veterans and private cemeteries, including permanently authorizing VA to provide government headstones or markers for the privately marked graves of veterans interred at private cemeteries; instructing VA to design a medallion or other device to signify a decedent's veteran status, to be placed on a privately purchased headstone or marker, as an alternative to a Government-Furnished headstone or marker; extending the time limit for States to be reimbursed for the unclaimed remains of veterans; and authorizing $5 million for operational and maintenance expenses at State cemeteries. The provisions in the bill are fully paid for through legislative repeal of a Court of Veterans Appeals decision which inappropriately extended a needs-based benefit to a population that Congress did not intend to receive it. Because inflation erodes the value of the dollar, Congress is responsible for adjusting compensation for service-connected disabilities. This year I sponsored S. 423, the proposed Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2007. The veterans' COLA legislation ensures that the purchasing power of veterans' benefits, including compensation for veterans and assistance for their survivors, is maintained. This annual COLA is done in recognition of the Nation's gratitude towards veterans young and old for their service and sacrifices. As the sponsor of the Senate version of this bill, I was pleased to support the passage of the House companion, H.R. 1284. I applaud Congress and the President for their work in making it law as of Monday, November 5, 2007. I hope veterans, including the 17,000 recipients of compensation who are served by VA's Honolulu Regional Office, benefit from this demonstration of our appreciation. Oversight investigations carried out by committee staff uncovered concerns in the veterans' benefits system as well. To improve the benefits system, the committee reported S. 1315, the proposed Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill would improve veterans' life insurance, adaptable housing, education benefits, and provide the committee with more oversight data. It would also address a 60-year wrong that is still being done to Filipino veterans who served under the U.S. Armed Forces during World War II. In the years since the end of the Second World War, Filipino veterans and their advocates, especially my distinguished colleague, Senator Inouye, have worked tirelessly to secure these veterans the status they were promised when they agreed to fight under U.S. command in defense of their homeland and to protect U.S. interests in the region. This bill would also more than double the maximum amount of Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance that a service-connected disabled veteran may purchase from $90,000 to $200,000. The VMLI program was established in 1971 and is available to those service-connected disabled veterans who have received specially adapted housing grants from VA. In the event of the veteran's death, the veteran's family is protected because VA will pay the balance of the mortgage owed up to the maximum amount of insurance purchased. The measure would also establish a new program of insurance for service-connected disabled veterans that would provide up to a maximum of $50,000 in level premium term life insurance coverage. This new program would be available to service-connected disabled veterans who are less than 65 years of age at the time of application. Under the new program, eligible service-connected veterans would be able to purchase, in increments of $10,000, up to a maximum amount of $50,000 in insurance. S. 1315 would also increase the amount of supplemental life insurance available to totally disabled veterans by 50 percent, from $20,000 to $30,000. This provision stems from S. 643, the proposed Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2007, which I introduced in February of this year. Many totally disabled veterans find it difficult to obtain commercial life insurance. This legislation will give totally disabled veterans better life insurance, a small measure of support for veterans who sacrificed so much. In addition, this bill would expand eligibility for retroactive benefits from traumatic injury protection coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance. This insurance program went into effect on December 1, 2005. All insured servicemembers under SGLI from that point forward were covered under traumatic injury protection regardless of where their injuries occur. However, individuals sustaining traumatic injuries between October 7, 2001, and November 30, 2005, which were not incurred as a direct result of Operations Enduring or Iraqi Freedom, are not eligible for a retroactive payment under the traumatic injury protection program. S. 1315 would expand eligibility to these individuals. The reported bill would allow for home improvements for totally disabled servicemembers prior to release from active duty. This provision is very important because many servicemembers return home to finish their rehabilitation and recuperation prior to discharge from the military. Their homes need to be adapted so that they can live comfortably and independently. S. 1315 also contains a number of provisions derived from S. 1215 which I introduced on April 25 that would make four small but necessary changes in existing laws relating to education and employment. First, it would restore the funding cap on the amount of funding available for State Approving Agencies to the fiscal year 2007 level of $19 million. Without this restoration, these entities that assist VA in approving programs of education would be facing a reduction of more than 30 percent beginning in fiscal year 2008. It is particularly important for SAAs to have adequate resources as more veterans return to civilian life and begin to use their educational benefits. Second, it would update the special unemployment study required to be submitted by the Secretary of Labor to the Congress by requiring that it cover veterans of Post 9/11 Global Operations. It would also require the report to be submitted on an annual, rather than a biennial, basis. By updating this report, we will have more data available to us on more recent groups of veterans those who served and are serving in the Gulf War and Post 9/11 Global Operations. This should better help us assess the needs of current veterans entering the work force and develop appropriate responses. Third, the bill would extend for 2 years a temporary increase in the monthly educational assistance allowance for apprenticeship or other on-the-job training. Eliminating the temporary increase would mean a monthly benefit rate cut on veterans enrolled in this type of training and remove marketable incentive to encourage individuals to accept trainee positions they might not otherwise consider. Finally, the bill would provide for a waiver of the residency requirement for State veterans' employment and training directors. By giving the Secretary of Labor the ability to waive the 2-year residency requirement, this provision would help ensure that the best qualified individuals from any state may be considered for SDVET vacancies. Both S. 1233 and S. 1315 were reported to the Senate in late August and have been pending floor action ever since. It is most unfortunate that we have been unable to reach agreement to proceed to their consideration, due in part to an abrupt and unexpected change in the minority committee leadership. Late last week, just days before Veterans Day, the other side of the aisle affirmatively blocked consideration of this important legislation that has the support of a majority of the members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Let me be clear--I do not expect all Members to support or agree with these bills, only to allow for their consideration by the full Senate. If members have amendments to offer, bring them forward. We can then craft an agreement under which the Senate might do its work and debate these bills. One final legislative item that I wish to mention--recently, I worked with my colleague Senator Webb on a matter of symbolic and real importance to servicemen and women as well as to veterans. Concerned that the Department of the Army was in a rush to replace the Tomb of the Unknown at Arlington National Cemetery, I introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act requiring the Army to prepare a comprehensive report for Congress before any further action could be taken. I am hopeful that this provision will be in the final agreement on the NDAA and look forward to the report, and its recommendations on how to best steward this national treasure. As chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am mindful of the employment issues facing veterans, members of the Guard and Reserves, and their families as they seek to move from the military to the civilian workforce. Making this transition is never easy, and for younger veterans it can be particularly difficult. For members of the National Guard and Reserves, returning to a job they previously held may be challenging for a variety of reasons. For family members, the uncertainty of multiple and extended deployments poses different obstacles. Finally, the obstacles facing those who are disabled during their service can sometimes seem overwhelming. The needs of these individuals deserve our utmost attention and resources. The committee has held two oversight hearings on employment issues this session. The more recent of the two hearings focused specifically on the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act of 1994, or USERRA. As our troops are returning home from battle, many of them seek to return to the jobs that they held prior to their military service, particularly those serving in Guard and Reserve units. I must admit to being particularly upset at the volume of USERRA claims related to Federal service. It is simply wrong that individuals who were sent to war by their government should, upon their return, be put in the position of having to do battle with that same government in order to regain their jobs and benefits. It is well known that veterans make good employees. Despite the challenges many face, veterans across the country are working and excelling in the labor force. They know how to work and they bring with them a wealth of expertise and experience. I believe the employment data supports my belief since rates of unemployment for veterans generally are lower than their nonveteran counterpart. However, the rate of unemployment for younger veterans and those recently separated from active duty tends to be higher than their nonveteran peers. I pledge to continue to pursue these issues aggressively in the months ahead. The issues regarding veterans' educational benefits are especially important to me. Having attended college at the University of Hawaii under the original World War II GI bill, I know the value of this important benefit first hand. The complexity and the importance of the issues surrounding the various education assistance programs administered by VA have been heard at two hearings this session. I plan to build off of the findings from both hearings for the committee's future work in this area. Educational assistance benefit has an important role in terms of a readjustment benefit for returning veterans and servicemembers. Properly tailored, these same benefits form an important keystone in recruiting and retaining high caliber young men and women in the Armed Forces. The balance between these twin goals is very complex and needs careful examination. I am concerned that the current structure of benefits has some flaws. It is disturbing to me that servicemembers who are in the line of fire and who place their own safety in jeopardy in service to our country have to pay for their educational benefits. It is also disturbing that members of the Guard and Reserve who complete multiple deployments in combat situations run the risk of having no educational benefits available to them. I do not expect to see a quick or easy answer for veterans' education benefits reform. I believe we will need to build a foundation for cooperation, compromise and consensus building. That will take some time. But I believe this process has begun, and that by working together, we will be able to develop something that is really meaningful to veterans, their families, and their futures. As I noted earlier, the committee held seven field hearings over the year. The first, chaired by Senator Brown, was held on May 29, 2007, in New Philadelphia, OH, and focused on the issues facing veterans in the rural areas of Appalachia. Two months later, the committee held its second field hearing, chaired by Senator Testor, again focusing on the needs of rural veterans. This hearing was held on July 21, 2007, in Great Falls, MT. These hearings, along with the insights of our committee members, enabled the committee to develop and mark up legislation to address certain issues facing rural veterans. On August 17, 2007, Senator Murray chaired a field hearing in Tacoma, WA. The hearing focused on the mental health care services available to veterans and servicemembers in the State of Washington. In August, I chaired a series of field hearings in my home State of Hawaii, on the islands of Maui, Oahu, and the Big Island. These hearings brought high-ranking VA officials from Washington, DC, to examine the state of VA services for Hawaii's veterans and returning servicemembers. On August 28, 2007, the committee held a field hearing in Augusta, GA, on cooperation and collaboration between VA and DOD, chaired by Senator Isakson. The specific focus of the hearing was on VA and DOD care for wounded servicemembers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. The committee has also carried out aggressive oversight activity during this session. Since January, the majority staff has conducted 95 days of oversight involving 28 trips to 18 states as well as to Korea, Guam and American Samoa. Oversight investigations have included visits to nine separate VA regional offices. During these nine visits, oversight staff reviewed a total of 119 individual veteran claim files, including 45 claim files for members of the National Guard and various Reserve units. Claims were selected for review based upon claims for service-connected disability due to traumatic brain injuries, posttraumatic stress disorder, or musculoskeletal conditions. In particular, the reviews were conducted to identify any systemic problems impeding the fair and efficient adjudication of veterans' claims. On a national level, one of the most critical issues identified by the claims review was a VA regulation which resulted in the denial of a rating higher than 10 percent for almost all traumatic brain injuries, or TBI, claims. As noted earlier, TBI has been described as a signature wound of the current conflicts. Medical evidence supports the view that severe long-term consequences can result from blast injuries involving improvised explosive devices, or IED, such as those used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite this, VA adjudicators believed that they could not authorize a rating in excess of 10 percent, or $115 per month, because of a current VA regulation. Upon learning of this problem, I contacted VA's Under Secretary for Benefits, Daniel Cooper, to ask why veterans with migraine headaches were eligible for higher disability ratings than combat veterans with TBI. I was pleased when Under Secretary Cooper informed me that VA adjudicators have been instructed to stop limiting ratings to 10 percent if not warranted. However, because Under Secretary Cooper's instruction is not binding upon the Board of Veterans Appeals or the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, I also wrote to the Acting Secretary for Veterans Affairs, Gordon Mansfield, to ask that the ``10 percent and no more'' regulation be rescinded. I understand that VA is now working on new regulations for the adjunction of TBI claims which will hopefully resolve this matter. I will continue to monitor these claims and VA's actions. In addition to the restrictive instruction in the rating schedule, it appears that neither the military services nor VA are providing comprehensive and thorough evaluations of veterans with mild and moderate TBI. While veterans who are being treated at polytrauma centers appear to be getting appropriate diagnosis and treatment, this is not true for veterans with significant, but less severe injuries. I believe that it is imperative that veterans with silent wounds, such as mild and moderate TBI have a comprehensive evaluation of their signs and symptoms by appropriate medical specialists. New data, such as the recently released information from VA that nearly 6 percent of the veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan screened have sustained traumatic brain injuries, adds to the importance of legislation that improves VA's ability to respond aggressively. Review of service medical records for claims involving PTSD indicated poor follow-up, assessment and referral of servicemembers who endorsed symptoms of PTSD on postdeployment surveys. This matter has been noted by the GAO and others. In some cases, veterans were discharged for a ``personality disorder'' which was not manifested prior to combat exposure and with no evaluation of classic PTSD symptoms. In other cases, veterans with significant psychiatric symptoms were not considered for a military disability retirement, but were awarded benefits by VA upon discharge. The committee's oversight investigations indicate that VA generally did a better assessment of claims for service-connected PTSD than the military services. However, for some disorders, VA will not grant service-connection for the small number of veterans who were diagnosed with PTSD during military service without independent verification of the stressor which gave rise to the diagnosis by military doctors. Some veterans who served in Iraq, but did not receive a medal acknowledging their participation in combat, have experienced difficulty establishing their ``personal participation in combat'' in order to validate the existence of a combat stressor. Under current law, veterans who allege disabilities related to their combat experience may prove their claim without presentation of official military documents. In order to clarify this issue and provide combat veterans with the benefits intended, I recently introduced S. 2309, the proposed Compensation for Combat Veterans Act. This bill would provide that service in a combat zone, recognized as such under the Internal Revenue Code, shall be sufficient proof that the veteran engaged in combat for purposes of the relaxed evidentiary requirement. I hope that we will be able to address this issue in the coming months. There is no question that the Guard and Reserve have experienced difficulties due to our current combat engagements, in a fashion quite similar to branches such as the Army and Marine Corps. There is some concern that members of the National Guard and Reserve units receive less favorable consideration of their service-connected claims than members of the Armed Forces. While oversight investigations did not substantiate allegations of less favorable treatment for Guard and Reserve claimants, other issues may require further analysis. Many regional office staff reported significant difficulties in obtaining copies of the medical records of members of the Guard and Reserve. As a result, I wrote to the National Guard Bureau to express my deep concern about a policy that I had been told exists in some states that requires National Guard members to sign a release form before their Service Medical Records can be shared with VA for purposes of adjudicating a claim for compensation benefits. Acting upon my request, the National Guard Bureau sent guidance to the field that removes the requirement that servicemembers sign release forms to have their records provided to VA. VA cannot be expected to end the benefits backlog if it lacks the staff to adjudicate veterans claims. While VA froze hiring in this area, there has been an increase in the number and complexity of claims received. As a consequence, the backlog has ballooned beyond already disconcerting levels. Although the infusion of additional monies for staff should improve the situation, some offices have too few experienced staff compared to the number of new hires. Oversight studies have found that less experienced staff is more likely to make errors on veterans' claims. In some cases, service medical records are maintained in an electronic format and are not provided to VA adjudicators in any form. In other cases, medical reports are scanned into the Veterans Health Administration electronic records, but are not able to be viewed by VA adjudicators who use a CAPRI system to access VHA records. I have questioned VA about the need to make these records available to VBA and am awaiting a response. While the committee does much direct oversight, as chairman, I also rely on the VA's inspector general. Indeed, the IG has consistently served as the committee's right hand in the execution of our oversight responsibilities. In the last year alone, the IG has provided us with a number of professional inquests and reports on issues of critical importance to veterans' health care. In the areas of traumatic brain injury, mental health, and substance abuse, among others, the IG has identified the problems and solutions with an insightfulness that few can match. The IG has also responded to my investigation requests in an efficient and collegial manner. The IG is, without question, the central gear in VA's internal controls and quality assurance mechanism. All American's have a role to play in honoring veterans. Ordinary citizens give in extraordinary ways, such as volunteering at VA hospitals and VA shelters, and supporting local Veterans Service Organizations. For those of us who serve in Congress, we have a special privilege and responsibility to honor veterans by ensuring that they receive the benefits and care they have earned through service. This Congress has done much for veterans already, but there is more to be done. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs will continue to do its share throughout this Congress. To name just two items of pending business, we will hold a markup tomorrow on pending legislation, including a bill that is designed to improve significantly VA's programs which address the mental health needs of veterans, especially those recently returned from combat, and second, the Committee is preparing to consider the nomination of Dr. James Peake to become Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I close with this thought: On the battlefield, one never leaves behind a fallen comrade. Similarly, veterans should never be left behind by a system designed to care for and honor them. We cannot stand by while veterans who have fought for our country have to fight to get the care and benefits they have earned through their service. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs will respond to whatever challenges may arise in our work on behalf of those who rose up to defend and serve our Nation. To our veterans: Our thoughts, prayers, gratitude, honor and pride are with you, not only on Veterans Day, but always.