Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to urge swift Senate passage of S. 2162, the proposed Veterans' Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008, as amended. This is an omnibus health care measure, which responds to the burgeoning mental health concerns of veterans and their families. The bill, as it comes before the Senate, is a compromise agreement developed with our counterparts on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I thank Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer of the House committee for their cooperation in this endeavor. I also thank my good friend, the committee's ranking member, Senator Burr, for his great energy and cooperation as we have developed this bill. This compromise agreement is also focused on addressing homelessness among veterans, increasing VA's efforts on pain management, promoting excellence in VA's efforts relating to epilepsy, and improving access to care in rural areas. It also includes a series of necessary programmatic authorization extensions as well as major medical facility construction authorizations. The framework for this bill is my legislation, S. 2162 as originally introduced. This bill represents a bipartisan approach and was cosponsored early on by the ranking member, Senator Burr, along with Senators Mikulski, Ensign, Rockefeller, Smith, Bingaman, Dole, Clinton, Collins, Sessions, and Stevens. Mr. President, I want to share how we began this process. The legislation did not stem from a lobbyist or an interest group. It came about because of one letter--a letter to me from the parents of Justin Bailey--Mary Kaye and Tony Bailey. Justin Bailey was a war veteran who survived Iraq only to die while receiving care from VA for PTSD and substance use disorder. A week after his death last year, Justin's parents were naturally heartbroken by the death of their only son, but even more than that, they were concerned that other veterans might share his fate if VA mental health care did not improve. In their own words, they asked, ``Everyone talks about the costs of sending troops to Iraq--what about the cost of caring for their injuries, both physical and psychological, when they return?'' From this first letter, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs held various hearings on the mental health needs of veterans. The media carried so many stories of veterans who were suffering, and various studies showed how prevalent mental health difficulties are in those who return from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. We worked with experts in the mental health field and others who were advocating for veterans, including those at the Disabled American Veterans, to craft a bill that responded to the problem. This legislation responds to the concerns of the Baileys and many others who have come to the committee to tell their stories, and does so with the clear understanding that veterans care is a cost of war. If we neglect to pay these costs when the service members first return from deployment, we as a nation will suffer incalculable human costs that can never be repaid. Provisions included in this compromise agreement are drawn from various bills which have all been reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including S. 1233 as ordered reported on August 29, 2007; S. 2004, S. 2142, S. 2160, S. 2162, as ordered reported on November 14, 2007; and S. 2969, as ordered reported on June 26, 2008. I will briefly outline some of the key provisions in the compromise agreement. This legislation would make comprehensive changes to VA mental health treatment and research. Most notably, it would ensure a minimum level of substance use disorder care for veterans who need such care. It would also require VA to improve treatment of veterans with PTSD co- occurring with substance use disorders. Additionally, in order to determine if VA's residential mental health facilities are appropriately staffed, this bill would mandate a review of such facilities. It would also create a vital research program on PTSD and substance use disorders, in cooperation with, and building on the work of, the National Center for PTSD. It is not uncommon for veterans with physical and mental wounds to turn to drugs and alcohol to ease their pain. Many experts believe that stress is the primary cause of drug abuse and of relapse to drug abuse. Sixty to eighty percent of Vietnam veterans who have sought PTSD treatment have alcohol use disorders. VA has long dealt with substance abuse issues, but there is much more that can be done. This legislation would provide a number of solutions to enhance substance use disorder treatment, including an innovative approach to substance use treatment via Internet-based programs. Furthermore, the inclusion of families in mental health and substance use disorder treatment is critical. To that end, the compromise agreement would fully authorize VA to provide mental health services to families of veterans and would set up a program to proactively help veterans and their families to transition from deployment to civilian life. Beneficiary travel reimbursements are essential to improving access to VA health care for veterans in rural areas. This legislation would increase the beneficiary travel mileage reimbursement rate from 11 cents per mile to 28.5 cents per mile and permanently set the deductible to the 2007 amount of $3 each way. Senator Tester has been a leader on this issue, and I thank him for that. Too often, veterans suffer from lack of care not only because they reside in rural areas but also because they are unaware of the services available to them. This legislation would enhance outreach and accessibility by creating a pilot program on the use of peers to help reach out to veterans. It would also encourage improved accessibility for mental health care in rural areas through coordination with community-based resources. Mental Health America and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America brought to the committee the concept of using peers to help veterans, and I think it is a good one. It is crucial that all veterans have access to emergency care. This bill would make corrections to the procedure used by VA to reimburse community hospitals for emergency care provided to eligible veterans to ensure that both veterans and community hospitals are not unduly burdened by emergency care costs. This provision is based on legislation introduced by Senator Brown in response to a situation in his own State of Ohio, where community hospitals were not being reimbursed timely from VA. The compromise agreement also addresses homelessness among veterans, a far too prevalent problem. The bill would create targeted programs to provide assistance for low-income veteran families. It would also increase the total amount that VA is authorized to spend on its successful Grant and Per Diem Program, which assists community-based entities that serve homeless veterans. Finally, the bill would expand a program to help formerly incarcerated veterans reintegrate into life and ensure facilities are up to par for women veterans who are homeless. Epilepsy is often associated with traumatic brain injury. This legislation would establish six VA epilepsy centers of excellence, focused on research, education, and clinical care activities in the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy. These centers would restore VA to the position of leadership it once held in epilepsy research and treatment. Senators Murray and Craig worked together to bring this critical legislation to the forefront. I also add that the Epilepsy Foundation of America and the American Academy of Neurology were very helpful to the committee on this issue. The medical community has made impressive advances in pain care and management, but VA has lagged behind in implementing a standardized policy. S. 2162 would establish a pain care program at all VA inpatient facilities, to prevent long-term chronic pain disability. It also provides for education for VA's health care workers on pain assessment and treatment and would require VA to expand research on pain care. We relied on the Pain Care Forum and their many organizations devoted to the relief of pain, and I thank them for their efforts on behalf of veterans. Finally, S. 2162 contains extensions of authorities for VA to provide some essential services to veterans, such as both institutional and non-institutional long-term care and caregiver assistance. It would also authorize a series of major medical facility construction projects and clinic leases in California, Texas, Puerto Rico, Florida, Louisiana, Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Ohio, Arizona, Georgia, and Illinois. Mr. President, before I close, I recognize and thank the individuals involved in putting together this comprehensive measure. Specifically, I thank Cathy Wiblemo and Dolores Dunn from the House committee and Jon Towers from the minority on the Senate committee. I also thank my own staff who assisted me in forging this bill. Kim Lipsky and Alex Sardegna heard the needs of veterans, sought creative solutions to some very complex problems, and worked tirelessly to make this bill a reality. In closing, I thank Mary Kaye and Tony Bailey, who set aside their own grief about Justin and fought for better mental health care for all veterans. We all owe the Baileys a debt of gratitude for so many reasons. I urge all of my colleagues to support swift passage of S. 2162, as amended. It would bring relief, support, and needed services to so many veterans and their families across the country. I ask unanimous consent to have the Joint Explanatory Statement printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is acting on S. 3023, as amended, the proposed Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, as passed by the House of Representatives earlier this week. The bill, as it comes before the Senate, is a compromise agreement developed with our counterparts on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I thank Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer of the House committee for their cooperation on this legislation. I also thank my good friend, the committee's ranking member, Senator Burr, for his cooperation as we have developed this bill. This omnibus veterans' benefits bill will provide much needed support to our Nation's veterans. It contains provisions that are designed to enhance compensation, claims processing, housing, labor and education and insurance benefits for veterans. A full explanation of the Senate and House negotiated agreement can be found in the Joint Explanatory Statement, which I will ask appear in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I will highlight a few of the provisions that I have sponsored in the legislation that is before us today. This legislation would result in improved notices being sent to veterans concerning their claims for VA benefits. Following a number of decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, VA's notification letters to veterans about the status of their claims have become increasingly long, complex, and difficult to understand. These notification letters must be simplified, as veterans, VA, veterans' advocates, and outside review bodies have all recommended. The notices should focus on the specific type of claim presented. They should use plain and ordinary language rather than bureaucratic jargon. Veterans should not be subjected to confusing information as they seek benefits. To further improve the VA compensation system, this legislation would end the prohibition on judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of matters concerning the VA rating schedule. VA issues regulations which are used to assign ratings to veterans for particular disabilities. Under current law, actions concerning the rating schedule are not subject to judicial review unless a constitutional challenge is presented. This legislation would amend the law to treat actions concerning the rating schedule in the same manner as all other actions concerning VA regulations. I expect VA to comply with all laws passed by Congress in developing and revising the rating schedule. However, justice to our Nation's veterans requires that actions concerning the rating schedule be subject to the same judicial scrutiny as is available for the review of actions involving other regulations. VA's Home Loan Guaranty Program may exempt homeowners from having to make a downpayment or secure private mortgage insurance, depending on the size of the loan and the amount of the VA guaranty. Public Law 108-454 increased VA's maximum guaranty amount to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit determined under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a single-family residence, as adjusted for the year involved. The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Public Law 110-185, temporarily reset the maximum limits on home loans that the Federal Housing Administration may insure and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may purchase on the secondary market to 125 percent of metropolitan-area median home prices but did so without reference to the VA home loan program. This had the effect of raising the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA limits to nearly $730,000, in the highest cost areas, while leaving the then-VA limit of $417,000 in place. On July 30, 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 was signed into law as Public Law 110-289. That law provided a temporary increase in the maximum guaranty amount for VA loans originated from July 30, 2008 through December 31, 2008, to the same level as provided in the stimulus act. The compromise agreement would extend the temporary increase in the maximum guaranty amount until December 31, 2011. This would enable more veterans to utilize their VA benefit to purchase more costly homes. The compromise agreement would also increase the maximum guaranty limit for refinance loans and increase the percentage of an existing loan that VA will refinance under the VA home loan program. Under current law, the maximum VA home loan guaranty limit for most loans in excess of $144,000 is equal to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit for a single-family home. Public Law 110-289 set this value at approximately $182,437 through the end of 2008. This means lenders offering loans of up to $729,750 will receive up to a 25- percent guaranty, which is typically required to place the loan on the secondary market. Under current law, this does not include regular refinance loans. Current law limits to $36,000 the guaranty that can be used for a regular refinance loan. This restriction means VA will not guarantee a regular refinance loan over $144,000, essentially precluding a veteran from using the VA program to refinance his or her existing FHA or conventional loan in excess of that amount. VA is also currently precluded from refinancing a loan if the homeowner does not have at least 10 percent equity in his or her home. The compromise agreement would remove the equity requirement for refinancing from an FHA loan or conventional loan to a VA-guaranteed loan. This would allow more veterans to use their VA benefit to refinance their mortgages. Many veterans do not have 10 percent equity and thus are precluded from refinancing with a VA-guaranteed home loan. Given the anticipated number of non-VA-guaranteed adjustable rate mortgages that are approaching the reset time when payments are likely to increase, the committee believes that it is prudent to facilitate veterans refinancing to VA-guaranteed loans. In light of today's housing and home loan crises, additional refinancing options will help some veterans bridge financial gaps and allow them to stay in their homes and escape possible foreclosures. These provisions would allow more qualified veterans to refinance their home loans under the VA program. This omnibus benefits bill would also make crucial updates to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which protects service members' rights to return to their prior jobs with the same wages and benefits. The provisions in the committee bill are derived from S. 2471, the proposed USERRA Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007, which Senator Kennedy and I introduced on December 13, 2007. This legislation would ensure that Federal agencies assist service members in a more effective manner by requiring the Department of Labor to investigate and refer cases in a more timely manner and by requiring reports from the Department of Labor on their compliance with the deadlines. The omnibus benefits bill includes a provision derived from S. 3000, the proposed Native American Veterans Access Act of 2008, which I introduced on May 8, 2008. This provision is intended improve VA's ability to understand and respond to the needs of Native American veterans. While Native Americans are more likely to serve in uniform than the general population, many of them find cultural and geographical barriers between themselves and the benefits they earned through service. In addition, those returning to traditional homelands, especially reservation communities, frequently come home to dismal job opportunities and starved economies. The proposed bill would require a study to help us understand the employment needs of Native American veterans and how best to address them. The compromise agreement also includes provisions derived from legislation I introduced on April 25, 2007, S. 1215, which would update the Special Unemployment Study required to be submitted by the Secretary of Labor to the Congress by mandating 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, Congress will have more data available on more recent groups of veterans--those who served and are serving in the Post-9/11 global operations. This will help with assessments of the needs of current veterans entering the work force and develop appropriate responses. Before I close, I recognize and thank the individuals involved in putting together this comprehensive measure. Specifically, I thank Kimberly Ross, Brian Lawrence, Juan Lara, and Mike Brinck from the House committee and Amanda Meredith, Mindi Walker, and Kevin Tewes from the minority staff on the Senate Committee. I also thank the majority staff who assisted me in developing the compromise agreement and all the legislation that led up to it. Patrick McGreevy, Mary Ellen McCarthy, Ted Pusey, Babette Polzer, and Dahlia Melendrez have worked throughout the 110th Congress on many of the provisions included in this legislation, and I am pleased that our collective efforts have led to this compromise agreement becoming a reality. I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation that would benefit many of this Nation's nearly 24 million veterans and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the Joint Explanatory Statement, which was developed with our colleagues in the House, printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to enhance the annual leave for Administrative Law Judges, Contract Board of Appeals Judges, and Immigration Law Judges in the Federal Government. I want to thank Senator Pryor for his support of this bill. Prior to 2004 Federal employees with less than three years of Federal service accrued annual leave at a rate of 4 hours per biweekly pay period. Employees with 3 to 15 years of service accrued leave at a rate of 6 hours per pay period, and those with over 15 years of service accrued leave at a rate of 8 hours. As part of the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004, Congress changed the leave accrual rate for new mid-career employees, allowing agency heads to deem a period of qualified non-federal career experience for an individual an equal period of service performed by Federal employee. In addition, the act stated that all senior executives and other senior level employees shall accrue annual leave at the maximum rate of 8 hours for each bi-weekly pay period. In the past, ALJs, CBAJs, IJs and members of the Senior Executive Service have been treated similarly. However, the Office of Personnel Management is now taking the position that these judges should not receive the same leave benefits as members of the SES since they are not under a pay for performance system. In addition to my general concerns over pay for performance, I believe it is inappropriate for ALJs, CBAJs, and IJs to be in such a system as it could threaten their independence. In fact, ALJs and CBAJs are not allowed to receive bonus awards for this very reason. Given the shortage of ALJs to adjudicate social security benefits and the need to recruit more immigrations judges, I believe that Congress should act to provide these judges with enhanced leave benefits. I am pleased that this bill has the support of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the National Association of Immigration Judges, and the Senior Executives Association. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to enhance the annual leave for Administrative Law Judges, Contract Board of Appeals Judges, and Immigration Law Judges in the Federal Government. I want to thank Senator Pryor for his support of this bill. Prior to 2004 Federal employees with less than three years of Federal service accrued annual leave at a rate of 4 hours per biweekly pay period. Employees with 3 to 15 years of service accrued leave at a rate of 6 hours per pay period, and those with over 15 years of service accrued leave at a rate of 8 hours. As part of the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004, Congress changed the leave accrual rate for new mid-career employees, allowing agency heads to deem a period of qualified non-federal career experience for an individual an equal period of service performed by Federal employee. In addition, the act stated that all senior executives and other senior level employees shall accrue annual leave at the maximum rate of 8 hours for each bi-weekly pay period. In the past, ALJs, CBAJs, IJs and members of the Senior Executive Service have been treated similarly. However, the Office of Personnel Management is now taking the position that these judges should not receive the same leave benefits as members of the SES since they are not under a pay for performance system. In addition to my general concerns over pay for performance, I believe it is inappropriate for ALJs, CBAJs, and IJs to be in such a system as it could threaten their independence. In fact, ALJs and CBAJs are not allowed to receive bonus awards for this very reason. Given the shortage of ALJs to adjudicate social security benefits and the need to recruit more immigrations judges, I believe that Congress should act to provide these judges with enhanced leave benefits. I am pleased that this bill has the support of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the National Association of Immigration Judges, and the Senior Executives Association. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the United States-India agreement on nuclear energy. The agreement states it is intended for cooperation on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and for other purposes. It is the phrase ``for other purposes'' that is most troubling. As I have seen over the years, it is always prudent that one requests all of the specific details of any agreement before approving such a deal. And the details of this agreement are most disturbing. If you agree with me that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is one of the greatest threats to humanity's continued existence then you should agree that preventing proliferation should be one of the cornerstones of our foreign and national security policy. Thus, there are only two reasons to support this agreement: first, it would enhance our international efforts to prevent proliferation, and second, it would prevent further testing of nuclear weapons on the South Asian subcontinent. Unfortunately, this agreement does neither. Instead it enhances the risk of proliferation and ensures additional testing of nuclear weapons in South Asia. This agreement undermines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, and other agreements that have been essential to our efforts for decades to prevent states from developing nuclear weapons. India is one of three states that has never signed the NPT, nor has it signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT. Nothing in this agreement requires India to do either. In effect, India will gain all the rights of a nuclear state and bear none of the responsibilities. Nothing in this agreement requires India to commit to eventual disarmament--an objective that even the United States, as a treaty signatory, accepts. It is possible to conceive of an end-state in which the United States and Russia disarm, but, in the case of India, there is nothing in this agreement that requires India to do so. This agreement would allow India to maintain a nuclear arsenal in perpetuity. As of today, the United States is a signatory to the CTBT--although the Senate has not yet ratified the treaty--but India is not. The United States has agreed to greater safeguards and constraints on its nuclear weapons program than has India. This is an extraordinary exception that the Senate is being asked to accept. Equally important, this agreement undermines our efforts to contain the spread of nuclear weapons to countries of concern. Right now those countries are North Korea and Iran. We do not know what adversaries tomorrow will bring. Even so, our concerns over the Iranian and North Korean clandestine nuclear programs are sufficient to warrant disapproving this exception for India's clandestine program. When the United States is trying to encourage Iran and North Korea to scale down and eliminate their nuclear weapons programs, to enter into a cooperation agreement with India for nuclear energy purposes would be sending the wrong message. I wish to remind my colleagues that the United States has been arguing that the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, and the United Nations Security Council should impose stiffer sanctions on Iran and North Korea. In addition, pending before the Senate is H.R. 7112, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2008. This bill would place new sanctions on Iran. I support such sanctions, and I support similar efforts to establish accountability to the India program. Another added concern is that India might support Iran's secret weapons program. Already a number of companies in India have been sanctioned under U.S. export control law for providing sensitive missile technologies to Iran. India's export control regime remains deeply flawed. We have a history of this administration not disclosing intelligence information that is derogatory to their argument. In the case of India, the administration did not report export control violations of Indian companies until critical votes had occurred in the House. What assurances have we received from the administration that they are not withholding critical information at this time from the Congress? The Senate has received a classified annex to the public Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement, NPAS, but I would ask, is that document complete? Does it address all the critical questions? I would suggest to my colleagues that, until there is certainty that all the answers to these serious questions are satisfactory; it is better to vote no on this agreement. Nothing in this agreement would prevent India from further testing of nuclear weapons. Some would argue that it makes it certain that India will continue testing, and, under this legislation, India can continue to receive nuclear materials from other countries even if the United States were to suspend any that it is providing. I believe that it is unlikely that the United States will find much of a new market for its nuclear products should this agreement be approved. India has a history of trading with Russia, France, and others in this area, and trade with these countries will, in the estimation of many experts, prosper. As Michael Krepon, a noted analyst of the Pakistani and Indian nuclear programs, has observed, ``The upgrading of New Delhi's nuclear forces will most certainly require more nuclear testing.'' In the case of a test, I believe that India will argue that it was forced to in order to ensure the safety of its nuclear arsenal and India's nuclear trading partners will argue against sanctions in the name of preserving what few Indian nuclear facilities remain under IAEA safeguards. India officials have made it abundantly clear that they maintain the right to test. India's Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, said, ``Let me hence reiterate once again that a decision to undertake a future nuclear test would be our sovereign decision, one that rests solely with our government.'' He noted ``We want to keep the option [of conducting further nuclear tests] open if the situation demands. If the international situation requires, we may have to [conduct nuclear tests].'' M.K. Narayanan, a member of India's Atomic Energy Commission, observed that ``This deal deals primarily with civil nuclear cooperation. There is no reference here to the event of a test. If there is a test, we come to that later on.'' If India does test, Pakistan may retaliate. As Pakistan has already indicated, it would match India step by nuclear step. In April 2006, Pakistan's National Command Authority stated: ``In view of the fact the [U.S.-India] agreement would enable India to produce a significant quantity of fissile material and nuclear weapons from unsafeguarded nuclear reactors, the NCA expressed firm resolve that our credible minimum deterrence requirements will be met.'' There is already a nuclear and missile weapons race in South Asia. This agreement will only accelerate it, and nuclear tests will fan the flames even hotter. Is this prospect in the interest of the United States? Has a National Intelligence Estimate concluded that such a scenario would enhance our national security? I return to the questions I posed at the beginning of my statement: does this agreement enhance our international efforts to prevent proliferation, and secondly, will it prevent the further testing of nuclear weapons on the South Asian subcontinent? The answer in both instances is a resounding no, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, the Senator from Connecticut, a question about the intent of section 101(c)(1) of the substitute amendment to H.R. 1424. Section 101(c)(1) of the bill provides the Secretary with direct hiring authority, which is a useful tool to allow a Federal agency to make an immediate employment offer to an applicant. It is my understanding that this provision merely waives the normal approval process of direct hiring authority by the Office of Personnel Management and that section 101(c) does not otherwise waive application of title 5. Does the chairman agree with my interpretation?

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. While this compromise does not include all of what I wanted, we must enact this legislation in an attempt to protect our credit markets and our economy. The administration has not effectively informed the public on why this action is needed. The Bush administration has so little trust and has been such a bad example of governance, I understand why so many people are skeptical. However, this is a time, where due to instability and deterioration of the credit markets, we must act. In addition, I value the expertise of the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. I have enjoyed working with the Chairman during his tenure. I agree with his assessment that the situation is as dire as he believes. Banks and investment banks have failed. Credit has become harder to get. Uncertainty and anxiety are high. When Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson came to us and explained how tenuous the credit markets are, I understood that we must avert further deterioration. It is clear that we must try and prevent the absolute collapse of the financial services industry, which would likely lead to an even more severe economic downturn, by enacting this bill quickly. Access to credit is becoming much harder to obtain. Fewer car loans are being approved. Small businesses are finding credit to be much more expensive and harder to obtain. The State of Hawaii recently delayed the sale of bonds due to the poor market conditions. Our economy cannot function without access to affordable credit. Credit helps families buy homes or pay for their child's college education. Businesses rely on credit for operations and investments. State governments utilize credit to make much needed infrastructure improvements. Without access to affordable credit, businesses will fail, more people will become unemployed, and our aging infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. We must enact this legislation to improve the likelihood of a swift economic recovery and try to avert a severe economic contraction. The original Treasury proposal included no oversight and was not a well thought out proposal. It was offensive due to its lack of accountability and oversight provisions. The purchase and sale of assets has great potential to be abused and lead to corruption. We must make sure that this situation, which has been caused partially by greed, will not be exploited to further enrich the individuals or corporations that caused this situation. By working together with the Chairman, we have included more oversight and accountably provisions to prevent abuse, ensure proper management, and reduce conflicts of interest. The legislation includes additional reporting requirements to Congress, mandated audits of the program by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, and the creation of a special treasury Inspector General to oversee the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP. We will have to closely monitor this program through aggressive oversight by the Banking Committee and other relevant committees. The legislation establishes a financial stability oversight board to review and make recommendations regarding the exercise of authority by the Secretary of Treasury under this act. Although the Secretary is able to waive provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAR, the Secretary would need to provide Congress justification for the determination that there are urgent and compelling circumstances that make such waiver necessary. This justification must be reported to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate within 7 days of the request. Furthermore, if the Secretary waives any provisions of the FAR pertaining to minority contracting, the Secretary shall develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure the inclusion of minority contractors. Furthermore, under this act, the Secretary will be required, within 2 business days of exercising his authority, to publicly disclose the details of any transaction. It also requires the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct ongoing oversight of the activities and performance of TARP, report every 60 days to Congress, and conduct an annual audit of TARP. It would also establish the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP. This office would be required to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the actions undertaken by the Secretary and would report quarterly to Congress. This is very important, as we have found with the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, SIGIR, the SIGIR has been instrumental in ensuring oversight of our efforts in Iraq. Establishing a similar office to oversee TARP is a critical component to monitor the actions approved by this act. Another important aspect of this proposal is that the authorization for TARP is graduated. The Secretary will be able to immediately access up to $250 billion. However, for an additional $100 billion, a Presidential certification would be needed. The final $350 billion could only be accessed if the President transmits a written report to Congress requesting such authority. However, should Congress pass a joint resolution of disapproval within 15 days of this additional authority, the additional authority given to the Secretary may not be used. The Act also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to implement a plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans through HOPE for Homeowners and other programs. The Secretary would also be required to coordinate with other Federal entities that hold troubled assets to identify opportunities to modify loans. I will continue to advocate for additional relief for homeowners so that people can stay in their homes. Finally, we must reform the financial regulatory system to prevent future credit crises from occurring. A lack of effective regulation has contributed significantly to the current crisis. This legislation establishes a congressional oversight panel to review the state of the financial markets, the regulatory system, and the use of authority under TARP. The panel is required to report to Congress every 30 days and to submit a special report on regulatory reform prior to January 20, 2009. A comprehensive set of hearings will need to be conducted by the Banking Committee during the next session to determine what regulator reforms will be necessary to ensure that future Federal intervention of this magnitude will not be necessary. In closing, this is not a perfect bill, but a necessary one to protect access to credit and ensure that working families can access mortgages and student loans. It is needed so that businesses can access credit to pay their expenses and fund expansion. This act is needed to help ensure that State governments can afford to finance necessary infrastructure improvements. I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership in helping craft this proposal. I also greatly appreciate the efforts made by Senators Reid, Schumer, and Reed. I look forward to continuing to work with them and the other members of the Banking Committee to oversee and improve the troubled asset program.

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Senator very much for that clarification. carbon dioxide sequestration

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was pleased the Senate passed the House Amendment to S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, today by unanimous consent. This bill follows through on the commitment that this Congress has made to our troops and their families to provide them with the support that they need and deserve. This includes a 3.9-percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed personnel--a half a percent more than the President's request--and a prohibition on increasing TRICARE beneficiary cost shares and pharmacy copays. It also includes a number of provisions designed to improve the readiness of our troops. For example, the bill fully funds Army and Marine Corps readiness and depot maintenance programs which will help ensure that the men and women in our armed services have the equipment necessary for them to fulfill their mission requirements. It also adds $15 million for the readiness and environmental protection initiative to fund priority projects that benefit critical mission training sites and directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive technical and operational risk assessment for DOD installations, facilities, and activities. As the chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, I was pleased to work toward the inclusion of a number of critically important management and acquisition policy provisions which were included in this bill. These include a provision to establish steering boards to review new requirements that could increase the costs of major weapons systems, language requiring business transformation offices for each military department and a provision requiring the DOD to establish ethics standards to prevent personal conflicts of interest by contractor employees who perform acquisition functions on behalf of the DOD. I applaud the inclusion of language that expresses the view of Congress that private security contractors should not perform inherently governmental functions in an area of combat operations and that contractor employees should not conduct interrogations of detainees during the aftermath of hostilities. However, I am disappointed that due to a large extent to the Administration's objections and the absolute need to pass this bill in an expeditious manner, we were not able to incorporate this sense of the Congress into provisions that have the force of law. As chairman of the Veteran's Affairs Committee, I was very pleased to have worked toward the inclusion of a number of provisions related to the treatment of wounded warriors. This includes a clarification of the requirement that DOD utilize the VA criteria in establishing eligibility of retirement and disability. It also requires the Secretaries of Defense and the VA to jointly establish a center of excellence in the mitigation, treatment and rehabilitation of traumatic extremity injuries and amputations as well as a center of excellence in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of hearing loss. In addition, this bill includes a provision derived from legislation that I introduced to extend senior-level oversight of cooperative efforts between the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. The Senior Oversight Committee, SOC, was formed in the wake of last year's Walter Reed scandal, to improve the efforts of DOD and VA in managing the transition from military service to veteran status for wounded servicemembers. The Senior Oversight Committee's responsibilities are not complete as long as wounded warriors are still returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, therefore, I was pleased to be able to include this language for the SOC to be able to continue its important function. Once again, I would like to thank Chairman Levin for his strong leadership and dedication to ensuring that this bill was passed. I also want to take this last opportunity to extend my warmest aloha to my friend and colleague Senator Warner who managed this bill on the minority side. In my many years of serving with Senator Warner on the Armed Services Committee, I have never failed to be impressed by his character, graciousness, and collegiality. Mahalo Nui Loa for your friendship and for all that you have done for our nation and the members of our armed services in particular.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I wish to make a few comments about some of our departing colleagues who will no longer be with us next year. I have known some of them for just a little while, others I have known for a long time. And, to all of them I bid a fond farewell and mahalo for their service to their State and to this country. They are dear colleagues and friends of mine and I know that even if they leave this fine establishment, our friendships will continue long into the future. The Senators that I am referring to are Senator John Warner from Virginia, Senator Pete Domenici from New Mexico, Senator Larry Craig from Idaho, Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska, and Senator Wayne Allard from Colorado. Please allow me just one moment to reflect on my service with each of these valuable members. I want to extend my deepest appreciation and warmest mahalo to my friend and colleague, Senator John Warner. His lifetime of devoted public service is truly admirable, and his integrity and dedication to duty make him a role model for all Americans. Few that have ever held the position of U.S. Senator have been able to combine his graciousness, intelligence, and absolute commitment to the public good that have allowed him to be such an effective bipartisan leader. His experiences as both a sailor and a marine during a time of war, combined with his executive responsibilities as former Secretary of the Navy, have given Senator Warner the ability to tackle complex policy issues during his time in the Senate. His leadership and experience on the Armed Services Committee, as well as his ability to reach across the aisle to get vital legislation passed, will be irreplaceable. He is a gentleman of impeccable character, and will be sorely missed by us all. I am honored and humbled to serve with him. Another good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from New Mexico, Senator Pete Domenici has been serving the people of his home State and this Nation for 36 years. Like Senator Warner, Senator Domenici also works beyond party lines to address controversial issues and the concerns of stakeholders. He is truly an exemplary role model for all members of Congress. Senator Domenici is a man of his word and has respectfully worked with members on both sides of the aisle. As a dedicated advocate he has helped encourage informed debates in the Senate. He has been a passionate advocate for many causes and has sought workable solutions. I have had the distinct pleasure to serve with Senator Domenici as a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. Senator Domenici has played an integral role in overcoming difficult challenges and meeting our country's energy needs. As a member of these committees I have witnessed his genuine concern and commitment to improve the well-being of and increase opportunities for indigenous communities in Hawaii, across the Nation, and extending to our Insular areas. Senator Domenici has been one of the leading advocates for mental health care in our country. He and Senator Paul Wellstone were great partners in trying to bring about mental health parity. Since Paul's death, Senator Domenici has led this initiative and worked with all of us in a continued effort to ensure that individuals can access essential treatment. Senator Domenici is a statesman and a gentleman. It has been a pleasure to work with him in the United States Senate. I am going to miss Senator Domenici and I extend my warmest aloha and heartfelt well wishes. I would be remiss were I not to mention the retirement of another of our colleagues, my friend Larry Craig. Senator Craig and I served together on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which he chaired in the 109th Congress. I will not forget Chairman Craig's willingness to bring the committee from Washington to my home State of Hawaii, to hear the concerns of Hawaii's veterans first hand. Under his leadership, the committee held an unprecedented series of field hearings on the needs of veterans living in Hawaii, the Nation's only island State. My colleague made this possible, and I will not forget his generosity. Senator Craig and I have not always agreed, but I am proud of the relationship he and I maintained as counterparts on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. His willingness to find workable compromises, and to work with, rather than against, those with opposing views, are both qualities in great need here in Washington. I wish him well as he returns to his native Idaho. Surely he will now be able to have more time with his wife, Suzanne, their three children, and their nine grandchildren. I wish him happiness and the best with his future endeavors. Another veteran that is leaving the Senate and a dear friend of mine is Senator Chuck Hagel. While he has elected to leave the U.S. Senate after serving two terms, his service to this country started long before he became a U.S. Senator. In 1968, he and his brother served in Vietnam, where he earned multiple military decorations and honors, including two Purple Hearts. His long career in public service began during his tenure as an administrative assistant to Congressman John Y. McCollister from Nebraska in 1971 until 1977. In 1981, he was nominated and confirmed to be deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration where had the privilege and honor to work for our Nation's veterans. Senator Hagel has served the State of Nebraska with great distinction and will be missed by all. And, lastly, I wish a fond farewell to Senator Wayne Allard. For 18 years, the people of Colorado and have benefitted from the leadership of Senator Allard. Through his service on numerous committees including Appropriations, Budget, Banking and Urban Affairs, our nation has benefitted as well. I applaud his commitment to energy and science as the founder of the Senate renewable energy and energy efficiency caucus as this is an issue that is also vitally important to me. On this 50th anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, I should note that Senator Allard has been a champion of space science and technology research and I would like to thank him for his leadership in this arena. From his time as a Representative of Larimer and Weld Counties to his current position as the Senator from Colorado he has been a dedicated and capable public servant and I wish him all the best. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statements were ordered to be printed in the Record.) Pete Domenici

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate one of the most significant books in human history, the Bible. As Senate cochair of National Bible Week 2008, it is my honor to join the National Bible Association in promoting the nationwide recognition of the Bible's importance in our daily lives. One of the many important verses in the Bible that applies to us as leaders is found in Proverbs 21, verse 1: The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord. Like the rivers of water, He turns it wherever He wishes. Our Nation has always recognized the power of an unseen hand guiding our fortunes and destiny, and during this important and critical crossroads, our Nation will do well to turn once again to the Bible for strength. This year, from November 23 to November 30, communities, churches, and leaders across America will celebrate National Bible Week by reading and reflecting on the Bible's teachings and how it can help us lead better lives. It is our responsibility as leaders to remind all Americans of the importance of the Bible to individuals and to our history, life, and the culture of our Nation. We gain much inspiration from the Scriptures, and the light of God will shine through us if we hold fast to the Bible's principles and apply them to our daily lives. I join my voice with my fellow National Bible Week cochair, Todd Akin, and the National Bible Week chairman, J. Willard Marriott, Jr., in urging all Americans to celebrate National Bible Week 2008. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, too many Americans are left out of our mainstream financial institutions. Millions of working families do not have a bank or credit union account. The unbanked rely on alternative financial service providers to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, and send remittances. Many of the unbanked are low-and moderate-income families that can ill afford having their earnings diminished by reliance on these high-cost and often predatory financial services. In addition, the unbanked are unable to save securely to prepare for the loss of a job, a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or education expenses. There are few affordable alternatives for consumers who need small loans quickly. We need to enact S. 3410, the Improving Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2008. This legislation authorizes grants intended to help low- and moderate-income unbanked individuals establish credit union or bank accounts. The legislation also authorizes a grant program to encourage the development of affordable small loans at banks and credit unions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter of support from the Credit Union National Association, CUNA, for S. 3410 printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. As my friend and colleague knows, the appropriations measure is not yet law. And even if it were, there are various options available to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. So I urge my colleague to join me in seeking a conference on S. 1315. Together we can decide how our committee and the authorizing committee in the House can deal with the concern about the Hartness case.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am disappointed and somewhat surprised that objection has been made on this motion. I must tell my colleagues that I have deep respect for my friend and colleague and my ranking member. I respectfully say that this objection is one that disappoints me, but it has been made to this motion. The intent of the motion is to create a mechanism by which there might be further action on this very important veterans legislation before the Congress goes into recess. Last week, when I sought a UC with reference to this legislation, I did so by seeking to utilize an unrelated House bill as a vehicle to create a conference. In objecting to that approach, the Senator from Idaho said my approach was a tactic he hoped we would not use to address this important issue. He objected. While I did not agree that this tactic was inappropriate, given the lack of action in the House on S. 1315 at the time, I recognized the merits of the Senator's position. Now, however, the motion is to use the same bill, S. 1315, as passed by both Houses. That is, in fact, the normal process, the regular order for resolving differences between the Houses. I addressed the Senator's concerns and am disappointed to see his Republican colleague objecting. I wish to remind my colleagues this bill passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 1. Surely there must be some willingness to stand by the Senate position, to validate the Senate's action. As I noted last week, this bill would improve benefits and services for veterans, both young and old. There are many provisions that address a broad range of veterans benefits. This bill deserves to be resolved and brought to a final vote. I realize there is some opposition to the provision which allows this legislation to meet pay- go requirements through the legislative reversal of a case known as Hartness. According to the one veterans organization that has expressed its opposition, the concern is not over the merits of the court decision. They simply oppose this effort to correct a mistake. The court's decision resulted in veterans receiving an extra pension benefit based solely on their age. This is not what Congress intended. I have not seen any analysis of the legislative history that supports that result. The purpose of the provision in S. 1315 is simply to restore the law to what it was supposed to be. Those who have characterized it as an attempt to withdraw benefits from deserving veterans and grant them to undeserving veterans are simply not fairly describing the legislation. The Hartness decision is wrong and should be overturned. How the savings of that action are treated is a fair subject for debate, and I believe we should have that discussion in the context of a conference between the two Veterans' Affairs Committees. I again ask, as I did last week, that the Senator, or Senators, who object to this request to set up a conference with the House advise me of the concerns and see if it might be possible to find a way forward. I am very committed to this legislation and would like to see if we can reach final action before we recess. If we are not able to do so, I intend to renew my efforts in the next Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House on S. 1315, the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act; that the Senate disagree with the House amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 674 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 1315, the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act, as passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that a title amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, of course, I am very disappointed that an objection has been made to this unanimous consent request. The intent of the request is to create a means by which there might be further action on this very important veterans legislation before the Congress recesses next week. On April 24, 2008, the Senate passed S. 1315, the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007, by a vote of 96-1. Since that time, the bill has languished in the House. This bill would improve benefits and services for veterans, both young and old. It includes numerous enhancements to a broad range of veterans' benefits, including life insurance programs for disabled veterans, traumatic injury coverage for active duty servicemembers, automobile and adaptive equipment benefits for individuals with severe burn injuries. In addition, the bill includes a provision that would correct an injustice done to World War II Filipino veterans over 60 years ago. It grants recognition and full veterans status to all of these individuals, both those living inside and outside the United States. In order to cover the costs of S. 1315, the bill would overturn a court decision in a case known as Hartness. That decision allowed for certain veterans to receive an extra pension benefit based solely on their age, a result never intended by Congress. The purpose of the provision in S. 1315 is simply to restore the clear intent of Congress, but some have mischaracterized it as an attempt to withdraw benefits from deserving veterans and grant them to undeserving veterans. This misconception is the main reason that action on S. 1315 has been held up. I am not interested today in debating the merits of the bill--either the increased benefits or the revenue provisions--but rather ask that the Senator or Senators who object to the request to set up a conference with the House--advise me of their concerns to see if it might be possible to find a way forward. I am very committed to this veterans' benefit legislation and would like to see if we can reach final action before the end of next week. If we are not able to do so, I intend to renew my efforts in the next Congress. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would secure more timely health care funding for the millions of veterans who rely on the Veterans Health Administration for their health care. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Snowe, Feingold, Landrieu, Johnson, Murkowski, Stevens, and Thune in introducing this important bill. Not all Americans realize that VA's health care system is the largest in the Nation. They do know, to be sure, that many veterans are injured while serving our country and, unfortunately, some of these injuries require a lifetime of care. Millions of veterans rely on VA for health care every year, and every year that number grows. Few Americans realize that the VA health care system must rely on an annual appropriation. While Congress has provided much-needed funding increases to veterans' health care in recent years, VA health care funding can be untimely and unpredictable, making it difficult for VA to manage its overall health care program effectively. A survey recently commissioned by the Disabled American Veterans found that 83 percent of respondents favor requiring Congress to determine the budget for veterans' health care a year in advance. This bill would do just that. During my time on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have heard former Secretaries of Veterans Affairs state plainly that the current process is no way to fund the Nation's largest health care system. We need to provide a more secure and predictable funding system for veterans health care. Our legislation will do exactly that. This legislation would require that veterans' health care be funded through the advance appropriations process. Under that process, programs are funded 2 years in advance, rather than a year at a time. Unlike the funding provided to Medicare and Medicaid, veterans' health care would not be funded as an entitlement--Congress would still be able to review and manage the funding, as necessary. But with advance appropriations, VA would be able to plan more efficiently, and better use taxpayer-dollars to care for veterans. Uncertain and untimely funding can limit VA health care's effectiveness, while they strive to meet the needs of veterans on a daily basis, as costs grow rapidly. What I am proposing today is not new. Congress already uses advance appropriations for programs that require funding in a timely manner, such as HUD Section 8 housing vouchers and the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program. To this extent, I submit that veterans' health care is just as deserving of secured and predictable funding. To increase transparency in this process, the bill I am introducing would require an annual GAO audit and public report to Congress on VA's funding forecasts. This process of continuous open review of VA appropriations would help VA funds go even further for veterans and taxpayers. Advance funding for veterans' health care has the strong support of the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform, a coalition which includes the following veteran service organizations: AMVETS, Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Paralyzed Veterans of America, The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Vietnam Veterans of America. My friend and counterpart in the House of Representatives, House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Robert Filner, is introducing a companion bill for advance funding as well. We are united in our determination to set down a marker for future action on veterans' health care through this bill, and place advance appropriations for veterans' health care on the National agenda. I urge all of our colleagues to join as supporters of more secure, timely funding for veterans' health care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. AKAKA pertaining to the introduction of S. 3527 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would secure more timely health care funding for the millions of veterans who rely on the Veterans Health Administration for their health care. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Snowe, Feingold, Landrieu, Johnson, Murkowski, Stevens, and Thune in introducing this important bill. Not all Americans realize that VA's health care system is the largest in the Nation. They do know, to be sure, that many veterans are injured while serving our country and, unfortunately, some of these injuries require a lifetime of care. Millions of veterans rely on VA for health care every year, and every year that number grows. Few Americans realize that the VA health care system must rely on an annual appropriation. While Congress has provided much-needed funding increases to veterans' health care in recent years, VA health care funding can be untimely and unpredictable, making it difficult for VA to manage its overall health care program effectively. A survey recently commissioned by the Disabled American Veterans found that 83 percent of respondents favor requiring Congress to determine the budget for veterans' health care a year in advance. This bill would do just that. During my time on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have heard former Secretaries of Veterans Affairs state plainly that the current process is no way to fund the Nation's largest health care system. We need to provide a more secure and predictable funding system for veterans health care. Our legislation will do exactly that. This legislation would require that veterans' health care be funded through the advance appropriations process. Under that process, programs are funded 2 years in advance, rather than a year at a time. Unlike the funding provided to Medicare and Medicaid, veterans' health care would not be funded as an entitlement--Congress would still be able to review and manage the funding, as necessary. But with advance appropriations, VA would be able to plan more efficiently, and better use taxpayer-dollars to care for veterans. Uncertain and untimely funding can limit VA health care's effectiveness, while they strive to meet the needs of veterans on a daily basis, as costs grow rapidly. What I am proposing today is not new. Congress already uses advance appropriations for programs that require funding in a timely manner, such as HUD Section 8 housing vouchers and the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program. To this extent, I submit that veterans' health care is just as deserving of secured and predictable funding. To increase transparency in this process, the bill I am introducing would require an annual GAO audit and public report to Congress on VA's funding forecasts. This process of continuous open review of VA appropriations would help VA funds go even further for veterans and taxpayers. Advance funding for veterans' health care has the strong support of the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform, a coalition which includes the following veteran service organizations: AMVETS, Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Paralyzed Veterans of America, The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Vietnam Veterans of America. My friend and counterpart in the House of Representatives, House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Robert Filner, is introducing a companion bill for advance funding as well. We are united in our determination to set down a marker for future action on veterans' health care through this bill, and place advance appropriations for veterans' health care on the National agenda. I urge all of our colleagues to join as supporters of more secure, timely funding for veterans' health care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the owners and employees of Coastal Windows, Inc., a family owned and operated business on Oahu and one of this year's recipients of the 2008 Freedom Awards presented by the Secretary of Defense and the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. Coastal Windows began their business in response to Hawaii's need for windows and doors that could endure the harsh environmental climate of the State's Sun, wind, rain, and salt air. They have been in operation for nearly 20 years and in that time have grown to an organization consisting of 62 employees. They are known for treating their employees as part of their ``ohana'' or family and are proud members of the community. The manner in which they take care of their employees who also serve in our Nation's Armed Forces should inspire all of us here in Congress and across this Nation. Take for example their employee U.S. Army sergeant Mike Echiverri, who is about to be deployed for the third time as a member of the National Guard. During his absence, Coastal Windows maintains all his benefits, including health, dental, vision, and his retirement plans. He also continues to earn sick leave and vacation time, and he is given additional time off to spend with his family before and after each deployment. Coastal Windows also often sends care packages to deployed employees and maintains regular communication via e-mail. The company also extends its support to family members of deployed employees by staying in constant contact with the family members and ensuring that spouses are invited to social events. Coastal Windows became actively involved with the Department of Defense's Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, ESGR, program after its vice president, Bob Barrett, learned of the organization's efforts to promote cooperation and understanding between Reserve members and their civilian employers. Mr. Barrett became an ESGR employer outreach volunteer and works with ESGR Hawaii to educate employers about the benefits of hiring Guard and Reserve members. Coastal Windows also supports the military community by participating in activities like the Marine Corps' Toys for Tots program. As 1 of only 15 companies nationwide to receive this honor, I congratulate Coastal Windows, and Mr. Bob Barrett in particular, for their dedication to their workers and for their selection as a Freedom Award recipient for 2008. They have set the standard in Hawaii as an example of how the community can take care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and their families and make a direct contribution to the national security of the United States. I salute them for their outstanding service and wish them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to share a report with our colleagues, which I received last month from the Departments of the Army and Veterans Affairs. The report addresses the Army's and VA's plans for repairing and preserving the Tomb Monument at the Tomb of the Unknowns. As many of our colleagues may know and appreciate, the Tomb is a national monument of great historical significance, especially to our Nation's veterans, located on the hallowed ground of Arlington National Cemetery. The Tomb Monument, which sits above the tombs for the unknowns from World War I, World War II, and the Korean conflict, has developed several cracks along the natural faults in the marble. For some time, there has been discussion of possibly replacing the original monument. However, prior to taking this option, I wanted to ensure that at the very least decisionmakers considered options for preserving, rather than replacing the monument. While I understand the concerns about the cracks in the Tomb Monument, I along with many others believe that our national monuments are not diminished by signs of their age. Many of our most treasured American symbols, from the Liberty Bell to the Star- Spangled Banner, are physically worn and weathered. This does not diminish their value or significance. I would argue that the same is true for the Tomb of the Unknowns. It is our Nation's tradition to preserve our historic national symbols. We must protect them from the notion that they can be easily discarded or replaced. With those concerns in mind, my colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, and I successfully added language requiring a report on plans for the Tomb Monument to last year's National Defense Authorization Act. The joint report acknowledges that replacement of the Tomb Monument could have a negative impact on the historic significance of the Tomb of the Unknowns. I am pleased that the joint report outlined several alternatives to replacing the Tomb Monument. I urge the Departments, in their respective capacities, to pursue the best means of preserving the Tomb Monument for future generations of veterans and Americans. While the Departments may have to consider partial or full replacement of the Tomb Monument at some future date, at this time there are still a number of other options which should be pursued. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters and the Executive Summary of the report be printed in the Record.