Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am very pleased to express my support for the provisions of the war funding supplemental that would establish a new GI bill for the 21st century. These provisions, drawn from S. 22 as introduced by the junior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, who serves with me on the committee, will establish a new program of educational assistance for the brave young men and women who have answered the call to duty in service to our country since September 11, 2001. This past Sunday, June 22, marks the 64th anniversary of the original GI bill. As one of the 8 million World War II veterans who took advantage of the opportunity it made available, I know firsthand the value of what we are prepared to approve today. If it were not for the valuable educational benefits I received, I would not be standing here today in the Senate. Without the GI bill and the maturity and discipline I learned through my military service, I am certain my life would have turned out much differently. The original GI bill changed America. It made higher education accessible for individuals from all backgrounds. Veterans flooded colleges and universities. Huge lines of returning servicemembers doubled or tripled enrollments. By the time the original GI bill expired in 1956, the United States was richer by hundreds of thousands of trained engineers, accountants, teachers, scientists, doctors, dentists, and more than 1 million other college-educated individuals. The original GI bill created major social change. Some have credited it with creating the middle class. And when the sons and daughters of the ``greatest generation,'' the baby boomers, came of age, the legacy of a college education was passed on to them. Today, we are set to approve a measure that will shape today's military, the future of the military, and the future of our Nation for many years to come. Today's new veterans will know that we honor the contributions they have made in service to this Nation. We understand the sacrifices they made, the hardships they endured, and the toll that has taken on their lives and the lives of their families. This new GI bill will be a tool that the military can use to attract our best and brightest college-bound high school seniors to voluntary military service. Down the road these new veterans will turn to their children and grandchildren and tell them that the way to advancement is through the successful completion of an honorable period of service to their country. I am genuinely delighted to have played a role, however small, in the formulation of this legislation. I sought to work with Senator Webb early in the development of this measure. When the time for action was at hand, he and I came together as a team and crafted the workable measure that is before the Senate today. I express my deep respect and gratitude to Senator Webb for his untiring efforts and personal commitment to this issue. As chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am excited to see that this new GI bill will have a smooth transition. I intend to work closely with Senator Webb and others toward that end. We will begin later this week by ordering reported a group of technical amendments that will help ensure that the implementation of the new GI bill will be as effective as possible. The committee, in its oversight capacity, will also be working closely with both the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to identify and resolve issues before they become problems. Today, with the final passage of this new GI bill, we say to our newest generation of citizen soldiers, we appreciate you. We recognize that the ability of our Armed Forces to attract and retain quality personnel in the future, and consequently our national security, depends on how we meet the needs of those serving us today. The new GI bill will do that for our country. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Wahiawa community as it marks the centennial of Wahiawa Elementary School. Located in central Oahu, Wahiawa is home to one of Hawaii's first pineapple plantations. As the industry grew, so did Wahiawa and the needs of its residents. Wahiawa Elementary opened in 1908, on Lehua Street with one teacher, Mrs. H.C. Brown, and 56 students. In 1924, Wahiawa Elementary expanded to six classrooms, only to be closed during World War II. In 1950, Wahiawa Elementary reopened with a new building and a new location on Glenn Street. Today, Wahiawa Elementary has an enrollment of approximately 500 and includes a center for medically fragile students, a teacher training center for students with autism, and a preschool. Wahiawa Elementary students have a 95 percent attendance rate. For 100 years, Wahiawa Elementary has been a focal point for Wahiawa, providing a strong foundation for the community's children and families. There are now several other elementary schools in the Wahiawa area due to dramatic population growth on the island of Oahu, but Wahiawa Elementary remains a special place. In understanding what this elementary school represents to its community, the school's motto is fitting: Ku lokahi ka `ohana `o Wahiawa! Stand in unison the family of Wahiawa!

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, within the span of 1 week, the Senate missed three opportunities to engage in productive debate on how we can combat the rising price of oil, and alleviate the dangerous emission of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change. It is highly regrettable that we have missed these opportunities, especially when it comes at the expense of improving the Nation's welfare. Americans are working harder, yet finding that their paychecks are not keeping up with inflation. Many are finding it difficult to pay their mortgages, health care expenses, and other daily needs. While relief, for some, is expected this July from an increase in the national minimum wage, more must be done to improve the lives of working families. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to work with this administration to make any meaningful changes that would assist working families. On June 10, the Senate was blocked in its attempt to further debate two bills offering legislative solutions to rising oil prices and our reliance on foreign oil. One of them, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, would have put consumers' concerns before those of the oil companies, by holding the companies accountable for price gouging and profit taking. Families do not need to be reminded that rising oil prices contribute heavily to their rising bills for energy, transportation, shopping and groceries. These families, for the most part, have not had a corresponding increase in their wages. They find themselves in difficult financial positions, and having to make tough choices on what necessities to spend their money on. This strain is even more evident in my home State of Hawaii. Hawaii depends on imported oil to supply more than 90 percent of our energy needs. The record-high crude oil prices cause higher processing charges for food and other manufactured items. The increase in cost for Hawaii's foods is due in large part to the higher cost of transporting the goods to the islands--80 percent of Hawaii's food products are imported via ship or airplane. Grocery prices have seen their biggest increase in nearly two decades. Furthermore, the high cost of jet fuel results in higher airfare prices and reduction in flights significantly limit travel for Hawaii residents and tourists. The reduction in visitors traveling to Hawaii could hurt our economy. While the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau is proactively working to aggressively resuscitate the market, the hotel occupancy in April hit a 5-year low. The city of Honolulu is considering raising taxi meter fares in light of record gas prices and the downturn in tourism. The administration must work with us to help our families and our communities by finding a way to decrease fuel prices. In addition, we must search for ways to reduce our dependence on oil. It is necessary that we continue to debate our energy future and enact appropriate reforms. Meaningful debates on three significant bills were unfortunately curtailed, despite the agreement of many members that we must do something about increasing oil prices, our reliance on foreign oil, and the need for cleaner energy. The aforementioned Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, and the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, would have helped the Nation move forward by continuing to invest in renewable and sustainable energy. Finding a solution should not be a partisan issue. Encouraging the development of renewable energy technologies will play a critical role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and our Nation's reliance on fossil fuels. In Hawaii, we are mindful of preserving natural and cultural resources. We are also aware of the powerful potential of nature to provide sustainable sources of energy. I am proud that we had bipartisan support for the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2007, which I introduced, and was later enacted into law as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This measure recognized that ocean and wave energy are viable sources of sustainable energy. We need to support marine renewable energy research and development of technologies to produce electric power from ocean waves. However, like many other tax credits for renewable energy, the incentives put in place to ensure robust investments will expire at the end of 2008. The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 would have extended these valuable credits. By harnessing the Sun, wind, ocean, and geothermal power to generate electricity, Hawaii is trying to reduce our heavy reliance imported fuel and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The vast ocean, Sun, wind, and land are natural elements that we, as a nation, share and enjoy. We must do all that we can to encourage the development and production of renewable and sustainable energy technologies from these natural resources. Achieving our goals will only be possible if we approach the problem as responsible stewards of our environment. Together, we will make an impact. I am committed to finding legislative solutions to ease the burden of increasing oil prices and to reduce greenhouse gases. As responsible stewards, we must do what we can to uphold the welfare of our environment and our Nation for the generations to come. An investment in the development and implementation of renewable energies is a significant part of the solution. I stand ready to work with others to enact legislation to address these concerns.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. My colleague Senator Inhofe and I also want to pay tribute to the families of those soldiers who risk their lives for our Nation. Too often the important role that families play goes unacknowledged but their faith and devotion are vital to the Army's success. The families of our soldiers have my deepest appreciation for the sacrifices they make and for the support they give our troops.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr President, today Senator Inhofe and I celebrate the Army's 233rd birthday. For over two centuries, the Army has fought to preserve the principles of democracy not only here in the United States but around the world. Our Nation's Army soldiers have served this Nation with honesty, courage, and dignity, and it is my privilege to take this opportunity to commemorate its birth. Both in times of peace, and in times of war, the U.S. Army has answered the call of duty and responded to the challenge of defending our Nation. All of our Army units, Active, Guard and Reserve, share the heritage of the first Continental Army which fought so valiantly to ensure the birth of a nation founded on the ideals of justice and freedom.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to express my strong support for S. 2162, the Veterans' Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008, as amended. This bill includes provisions on mental health care, suicide prevention, care for substance use disorders, prevention of homelessness, pain and epilepsy care, and other health care matters. This comprehensive legislation addresses many critical issues facing our Nation's veterans. Returning home from battle does not necessarily bring an end to conflict. Servicemembers return home, but the war often follows them in their hearts and minds. Their invisible wounds are complicated and wide-ranging, and we must provide all possible assistance. I am working with VA Secretary James Peake to ensure that VA is forthright about the numbers of suicides and attempted suicides among veterans. Solid and reliable information is critical to our understanding of the issues. Prevention of suicide is a vitally important mission. A growing number of veterans are in need of mental health care. VA's Special Committee on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder advised in its 2006 formal report that virtually all returning servicemembers face readjustment issues. An assessment of mental health problems among returning soldiers, recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in November, 2007, found that 42.4 percent of National Guard and reservists screened by the Department of Defense required mental health treatment. Additionally, a March 2007 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine reported that more than one-third of war veterans who have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan suffer from various mental ailments, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, substance use disorder and other problems. A RAND study released in April 2008, emphasized the high risks of PTSD and depression, especially among servicemembers sent on multiple deployments, and among National Guard and reservists. Further, the RAND study found that the stigma associated with mental health care continues to prevent servicemembers and veterans from accessing care. VA and the Department of Defense must redouble their efforts to ensure that receiving mental health care does not harm one's career. No individual is immune to the risk of mental health problems, and all must have the opportunity to receive care. On April 25, 2007, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on veterans' mental health concerns, and on VA's response. We heard heart-wrenching testimony from the witnesses. The provisions of this bill are a direct outgrowth of that hearing and the testimony given by those who have suffered with mental health issues, and by their family members. Earlier versions of the provisions included in this bill were also discussed at a legislative hearing on October 24, 2007. This bill represents a bi-partisan approach, and is cosponsored by Senators Burr, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Bingaman, Ensign, Smith, Collins, Clinton, Dole, and Sessions. It is a tribute to Justin Bailey, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, who died in a VA domiciliary facility while receiving care for PTSD and a substance use disorder. This was a tragedy that will live on with Justin's parents, who have so courageously advocated for improvements to VA mental health care. Provisions included in this legislative package stem from bills which have all been reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including: S. 1233 as reported on August 29, 2007; and S. 2004, S. 2142, S. 2160, and S. 2162, as ordered reported on November 14, 2007. I will briefly outline other provisions in S. 2162, as amended. As I mentioned, the legislation would make sweeping changes to VA mental health treatment and research. Most notably, it would ensure a minimum level of substance use disorder care for veterans in need. It would also require VA to improve treatment of veterans with multiple disorders, such as PTSD and substance use disorder. To ascertain 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. Veterans with physical and mental wounds often turn to drugs and alcohol to ease their pain. Experts believe that stress is the primary cause of drug abuse, and of relapse to drug abuse. Research by Sinha, Fuse, Aubin and O'Malley in Psychopharmacology, 2000, and by Brewer et al. in Addiction, 1998, has found that patients with psychological trauma, including PTSD, are often susceptible to alcohol and drug abuse. Similarly, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, patients subjected to chronic stress, as experienced by those with PTSD, are prone to drug use. VA has long dealt with substance abuse issues, but there is much more than can be done. This legislation would provide a number of solutions to enhance substance use disorder treatment. The inclusion of families in mental health treatment is vital. To this end, the bill would fully authorize VA to provide mental health services to families of veterans and would set up a program to help veterans and families transition 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. It is important that veterans who rely on VA for their health care 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 so as to ensure that both veterans and community hospitals are not inappropriately burdened by emergency care costs. Too often, veterans suffer from lack of care merely 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. The legislation also addresses homelessness, which is far too prevalent in the veteran population. The bill would create targeted programs to provide assistance for low-income veteran families. It would also allow homeless service providers to receive VA funds without offsetting other sources of income and require that facilities which furnish services to homeless veterans are able to meet the needs of women veterans. The committee heard testimony that epilepsy is often associated with traumatic brain injury, the injury that many are calling the signature wound of the current conflicts. This suggests a strong need to improve VA's effectiveness in dealing with epilepsy. The pending legislation would establish six VA epilepsy centers of excellence, which will focus 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. The medical community has made impressive advances in pain care and management, but VA has lagged behind in implementing a standardized policy for dealing with pain. The bill includes a provision that would establish a pain care program at all 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. I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 2162, as amended. It has the potential to bring relief and support to tens of thousands of veterans and their families across the country.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on April 24, 2008, the Senate passed S. 1315, the proposed Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. Although the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 96-1, there are some who oppose it, expressing the belief that provisions in the bill misallocate VA pension benefits to reward nonveterans. I seek to set the record straight on S. 1315. S. 1315 is a comprehensive bill that would improve benefits and services for veterans, both young and old. The bill includes numerous enhancements to a broad range of veterans' benefits, including life insurance programs for disabled veterans, traumatic injury coverage for active duty servicemembers, and specially adapted housing and 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 these individuals, both those living inside and outside the United States. Many Americans have forgotten that during World War II, the Philippines was not an independent nation as is the case today. The Philippines, along with Puerto Rico and Guam, was ceded to the United States in 1898 following the Spanish-American War. Although plans for Philippine independence from the United States were underway when World War II broke out, the United States government controlled the defense and foreign relations of the Philippines when the war began. It was not until 1946, after the end of World War II, that the Philippines became an independent nation. As a result of this relationship, Filipino veterans who fought under the United States Command were United States veterans until that status was taken away by Congress in 1946. S. 1315, the bill as passed by the Senate, would overturn a 2006 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in the case Hartness v. Nicholson. The Hartness decision provided that certain veterans, those who receive a service pension benefit based solely on their age, qualify for additional benefits that are provided to very severely disabled veterans, a result not intended by Congress. The savings generated from overturning this court decision would pay for many provisions in the bill, including pension for Filipino veterans. Despite the fact that the purpose of the provision in S. 1315 which reverses the Hartness decision is to do nothing more than restore the clear intent of Congress, it has been mischaracterized by some as an attempt to withdraw benefits from deserving veterans in order to fund benefits to Filipino veterans. That is simply not the case. Such accusations fail to appreciate the facts of the matter that led the Senate to take corrective action. VA nonservice connected disability pension benefits have historically been paid to wartime veterans with low incomes who are disabled from conditions not connected to their service. Under current law, wartime veterans who receive pensions based upon disability are eligible to receive certain additional benefits if they are totally disabled and are also housebound, blind, or need the aid and attendance of another person to perform daily activities. The statutory provision involved in Hartness was enacted in 2001 so as to provide a service pension, not based on disability, to certain veterans. Under this law, older, low income wartime veterans are eligible for a service pension at age 65, without the need to demonstrate any disability. This service pension, which is similar to one provided many years ago to veterans of the Spanish American War, is found in the service pension section of the statute, not in the section of the law where pension for disabled veterans is found. The court in Hartness ruled that elderly persons who are not totally disabled, but who receive a service pension based on age, could also receive the extra benefits available under the disability pension benefit program, even if they did not meet the threshold requirement of total disability. In so doing, the Hartness court failed to demonstrate an understanding of the difference between a service pension and a pension based on disability. In passing the service pension law in 2001, Congress clearly created a separate program and did not intend the result in the Hartness decision. Congress intended that veterans who were disabled would receive benefits under the disability pension program, with the opportunity to receive the extra benefits if they were more seriously disabled. Veterans who met the age threshold, but who were not disabled, would receive benefits only under the service pension program, with no basis for receiving the extra benefits. The intent of this action was to create a bright line distinction between the two pension programs, but the actual statutory construction allowed for ambiguity, leading the court to misinterpret the law. The provision passed by the Senate in S. 1315 would overturn the Hartness decision so as to reaffirm that the extra pension benefits are only for those severely disabled veterans who receive pension on the basis of being totally disabled. This result conforms to the original Congressional intent of reserving the special additional benefits for those who demonstrate the greatest need based on disability, not simply those who attain a certain age. Even with the repeal of Hartness, aged veterans who are totally disabled and who are also housebound or in need of aid and attendance would still qualify for additional money under the nonservice connected disability pension program. S. 1315 is now pending in the House of Representatives and there is some opposition to the bill that seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the purpose of VA pension benefits and the Hartness decision. Critics of the bill have suggested that it arbitrarily redistributes scarce VA benefits to the benefit of individuals to whom our government has no responsibility. These critics fail both to understand the history of the provisions construed in the Hartness decision and the service of Filipino veterans. Restoring the original purpose of the service pension law would provide the savings needed to pay for increased benefits for veterans with service-connected disabilities as well as justice for Filipino veterans of World War II.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I wish today to discuss the U.S. export control system bureaucracy and its impact on our national interests. Recently I chaired a hearing of the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee entitled ``Beyond Control: Reforming Export Licensing Agencies for National Security and Economic Interests.'' Some of the issues explored in the hearing were: revising the multilateral coordination and enforcement aspects of export controls; addressing weaknesses in the interagency process for coordinating and approving licenses; reviewing alternative bureaucratic structures or processes to eliminate exploitable seams in our export control system; and ensuring that there are enough qualified licensing officers to review efficiently license applications. Witnesses from the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Department of Defense's Defense Technology Security Administration responded to almost a decade's worth of analysis, recommendations, reports, and testimony from the Government Accountability Office, GAO. The GAO witness on the panel identified numerous instances of inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the U.S. export control system, including poor strategic management, insufficient interagency coordination, shortages of manpower, short-term fixes for long-term problems, and inadequate information systems. Although the agency witnesses acknowledged their progress in addressing these shortcomings, they also articulated a deeper need for greater reform in response to the challenges of globalization in the 21st century. I would go one step further then the administration witnesses. The U.S. export control system is a relic of the Cold War and does not effectively meet our national and economic security needs. Recent examples demonstrate the challenges of controlling sensitive exports. Dual-use technology has been diverted through Britain and the United Arab Emirates, UAE, to Iran. A recent attempt by two men to smuggle sensitive thermal imaging equipment to China shows that Iran is not alone in its desire for sensitive technology. However, the effort to control the flow of dual-use technology goes beyond our borders. Working with the international community is critical as technologies which were once only produced in the U.S. are now being produced elsewhere. The second group of witnesses, representing many decades of government and private sector experience with export controls, identified recommendations that could begin to modernize this system: eliminating the distinction between weapons and dual-use technology; reducing the total number of items on control lists; implementing project licenses that cover a multitude of items instead of relying on an item-by-item licensing process; passing an updated Export Administration Act; focusing on multilateral export controls and harmonizing them with our allies; and reestablishing high-level policy management of both dual-use and munitions exports at the White House. Mr. President, I would like to ask to have printed in the Record, following my remarks, a CRS memorandum providing an excellent overview of U.S export controls. An opportunity to revise our ineffective and inefficient export control system will accompany the arrival of the new administration in January. I urge my colleagues to consider these recommendations for improving the management and bureaucracy of the export control system as the Congress debates and updates relevant legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the two CRS memoranda to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to speak today about the broken hiring process in the Federal Government and the need to recruit and retain the next generation of Federal employees. The Federal Government is the largest employer in the United States, but every day talented people interested in Federal service are turned away at the door. Too many Federal agencies have built entry barriers for younger workers, invested too little in human resources professionals, done too little to recruit the right candidates, and invented an evaluation process that discourages qualified candidates. As a result, high-quality candidates are abandoning the Federal Government. The Federal Government has become the employer of the most persistent. This problem was forcibly brought home at a hearing on May, 8, 2008, of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia entitled ``From Candidates to Change Makers: Recruiting the Next Generation of Federal Employees,'' which I chair. The subcommittee heard testimony from the Office of Personnel Management, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Government Accountability Office, Federal employee unions, think tanks, a human resources consulting firm, and an expert in New Media marketing. The Government Accountability Office's testimony pointed out the broad failures of agencies to address these issues and stated, ``Studies by us and others have pointed to such problems as passive recruitment strategies, unclear job vacancy announcements, and imprecise candidate assessment tools. These problems put the Federal Government at a competitive disadvantage when acquiring talent.'' The Office of Personnel Management OPM is supposed to be the leader in the Federal Government on personnel and human capital practices, but not enough is being done. OPM's answer is to offer a legislative proposal that would have the Federal Government rehire retired employees on a part-time or limited-time basis. This demonstrates a clear lack of focus on attracting the next generation of Federal workers and working to retain the current employees. OPM estimates that 30 percent of the Federal workforce--approximately 600,000 employees-- will retire in the next 5 years. Rehiring former employees does not address the changing culture of job seekers. Mr. Dan Solomon, the chief executive office of the marketing firm Virilion, addressed the issue of developing recruitment strategies that are friendly to 25- to-35-year-old. Mr. Solomon laid out the challenge before Federal agencies in recruiting the next generation testifying, ``younger people are a difficult group to reach and engage . . . bottom line: people looking for jobs are online and the government needs to be there to attract the best.'' Reports and surveys from the Merit Systems Protection Board MSPB, the Partnership for Public Service, and the Council for Excellence in Government demonstrate that young people strongly desire to work in public service. Agencies need to meet young people where they are, and developing recruitment strategies, using online resources and streamlining the hiring process are essential to attracting the next generation of Federal employees. In the private sector, employers post jobs through many online venues and only require a resume and cover letter. Applying to the Federal Government should be accessible and easy. There were many good suggestions made to improve the process. I believe that if OPM forced agencies to adopt those recommendations improvements would be made. For example, MSPB offered four sound recommendations that could significantly improve agencies' efforts if adopted, First, agencies should manage hiring as a critical business process, and not an administrative function that is relegated to the human resources staff. Second, agencies should evaluate their own internal hiring practices to identify barriers to high-quality, timely, and cost-effective hiring decisions. Third, employ rigorous assessment strategies that emphasize selection quality, not just cost and speed. Finally, agencies should implement sound marketing practices and better recruitment strategies, improve their vacancy announcements, and communicate more effectively with applicants. Agencies can do this. The problem is not Congress. Since 2002, Congress has given agencies the flexibilities they need. Agencies no longer must rely on the rule of three or selecting only from the top three candidates who apply; they can use category ratings; and they can get direct hire authority from OPM. However, in many cases Federal agencies are not using these authorities. Neither is the competitive process the problem. The notion that merit system principles and veterans preference are barriers to hiring is wrong. These are good management practices that ensure agencies select qualified candidates and do not use discriminatory practices. OPM has not done enough to force agencies to streamline their hiring processes and appeal to the next generation of employees. OPM developed the 45-day hiring model and Hiring Tool Kit to reduce the hiring time at agencies to 45 days and streamline internal processes. However, these have not reduced the number of complaints from applicants about the length and complexity of the process. The 45- day model is 45 workdays or 9 weeks. Furthermore, agencies still require too much information up front from candidates instead of an approach that requires more information as the employee moves through the process. Agencies need to adapt, just as the private sector has, to the culture of the next generation of Federal workers. Candidates should receive timely and informative feedback. Candidate-friendly applications that welcome cover letters and resumes should be implemented. And, more pipelines into colleges and technical schools need to be developed to recruit candidates with diverse backgrounds. Witnesses from the hearing were committed to improving the process offered many recommendations to help agencies. However, these recommendations are not new and I am concerned that their efforts may be too little, too late. Agencies have the existing authorities to streamline their processes and some are already doing so, but it is not enough. I am convinced that only through agency leadership that prioritizes this issue will any meaningful reforms take place. I will continue to press this administration to address this issue, and I encourage the next administration to take on the challenge of reforming the recruitment and hiring process to ensure that the Federal workforce is the greatest workforce in the world.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Virginia and I have worked together closely on his proposal for a new GI bill since he introduced it in January 2007. I was delighted to be able to join him as a cosponsor of S. 22. I deeply appreciate his very strong--and very personal--commitment to it. Now it is time to give those young service members who are stepping forward voluntarily--putting themselves in harm's way--an opportunity for quality educational assistance. We must make good on our promise of an education in return for serving honorably in our military. Mr. President, the time has come for a new GI bill for the 21st century. I believe that it should be promptly signed into law. Sadly, despite the fact that it has passed this body by a veto-proof majority, President Bush, who sent our troops into war and is again requesting billions of dollars to pay for it, has threatened to veto this measure. Today, I extend my personal pledge to Senator Webb and all who support a revitalized GI bill. If bill is vetoed and Congress fails to override the veto, I will bring Senator Webb's New GI bill before the Veterans' Affairs Committee during our markup next month and urge that the Committee favorably report it to the Senate. It is time to give those young service members, stepping forward voluntarily and putting themselves in harm's way, an opportunity for quality educational assistance. We must make good on our promise of an education in return for serving honorably in our military. I am committed to seeing this legislation become law.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I am delighted to be an original cosponsor of the amendment offered by the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia which would clarify that the provisions in current law regarding the transferability of educational assistance benefits to family members would apply to the new GI bill for the 21st century. This amendment would further give the Department of Defense the ability to conduct a 2-year test of somewhat expanded transferability options to individuals who have completed 4 years of active duty service, who agree to complete an additional 6r years of service, and who meet such additional criteria as the Secretary of Defense establishes. I have consistently stated that I believe that transferability can be an important retention tool for the military and that the provisions of current law would apply to the provisions in S. 22 as revised. However, I have also noted that there is no data that demonstrate the retention value of the transferability option. The Army implemented a pilot program in July 2006 which allows soldiers who reenlist in critical skills to transfer their Montgomery GI bill benefits to their spouses. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that the Department of Defense annual report on entitlement transfers, dated March 20, 2008, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks so that Members can see that less than two percent of those who were offered the opportunity to transfer benefits took advantage of that option. It is on this basis that I believe that this authority needs to be continued and expanded slightly in the context of this new GI bill for the 21st century. But to rely on transferability solely or in lieu of the legislation that has been carefully developed by Senator Webb and others would be a mistake. I urge the Senate to approve the amendment offered by Senator Warner. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of a new GI bill for the 21st century. As chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and as one of the 8 million veterans who took advantage of the opportunity to attend college on the original World War II GI bill, I know first-hand the value of this benefit. It is one of the reasons why I am here today in the U.S. Senate. Without the generous support I received from the GI bill and the maturity and discipline I gained from my military experience, I am certain that my life would have turned out much differently. Being able to attend the University of Hawaii--with all expenses covered--and receiving an allowance of $113.50 a month--gave me the start in life that led to me standing here in this body today. Now we should give that same opportunity to those young people-- stepping forward--who put themselves in harm's way for our country. That is why I have given my enthusiastic support to the provisions that will come before the Senate later this week in the supplemental appropriations bill that would establish a new program of educational assistance for veterans and servicemembers. Those provisions are drawn from S. 22,--the proposed Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007, which was introduced by my good friend and colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, who serves with me on the committee. This is a bipartisan measure that has already been approved by the House of Representatives. This legislation will give thousands of young men and women who sacrificed for our country the opportunity to return to civilian life and pursue a full-time college education without worrying about what they will live on. It makes good on our promise of an education in return for volunteering to serve in our military and for honorable service. To those who have concerns about the impact that this proposal might have on the Armed Forces ability to recruit and retain quality personnel, there are a number of points which must be made. First, this new GI bill for the 21st century would be a powerful recruitment tool for our military. Our bright, college-bound high school seniors will see this as an attractive way to pay for their advanced education. By completing a 3-year commitment, they will earn a benefit that will allow them to attend school without accumulating thousands of dollars of debt. As for retention, the armed services cannot retain those who they do not recruit. In addition, this proposal incorporates a number of tools that the military can use to make longer commitments attractive, including retention kickers and the option of transferring benefits to family members. I believe that those who would rely on transferability as an incentive to longer service would be disappointed. In 2006, the Army began offering this option to certain soldiers in critical skill areas. Less than 2 percent of the 17,000 soldiers who were given an option to transfer benefits to a spouse accepted it. Now the program has been expanded to permit transferability to children, but much more experience is needed before anyone can positively say that this benefit would have the desired impact on retention. Finally, I want to say a few words to those who are concerned about the cost of the program. I have long said caring for veterans is a continuing cost of war. This Nation will be paying for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan for many years. The cost of this program is a very small portion of the total funds that have already been spent and will continue to be incurred in the future. As others have pointed out, this program would be an extremely small percentage of what these conflicts are costing us each day. I have worked very closely with Senator Webb in developing this legislation. I take this opportunity to thank both Senator Webb and his staff, especially Phillip Thompson and William Edwards, for their cooperation and collaboration. I also thank Senator Johnson and Appropriations Committee staff, Chad Schulken, as well as Senator Hagel and his staff member, Sarah Pullen for their cooperation and assistance. I believe that what the Appropriations Committee has reported, and that will be before us later this week, is a workable and effective proposal and I urge my colleagues to support it and the President to sign it into law. It is time for a new GI bill for the 21st century. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the proposed Veterans' Notice Clarification Act of 2008. This bill would require VA to issue regulations specifying the content of notices provided to claimants who seek VA benefits and services. Following a number of court decisions, VA's notification letters to veterans 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 letters should use simple ordinary language rather than bureaucratic legalese and they should be focused on the specific type of claim that the veteran is bringing. My bill would require different notice contents depending upon whether the claim is an original claim, a claim to reopen, or a claim for an increase in benefits. VA would also have the discretion to provide additional or alternative contents for notice if appropriate to the benefits sought. For example, an original claim for service- connected compensation may require different content than a claim for a specially adapted housing grant. The notice required for original claims by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act, Public Law 106-475, should provide useful information based on the documents submitted to VA and the benefit sought. The information and evidence requested by VA should be relevant to the claim filed. For example, the information and evidence requested by VA for a claim for disability compensation and financial information concerning claims for pension benefits are wholly different. A veteran should not be made to submit information that is unrelated to his or her claim. I believe that this bill, if enacted, will assist VA in developing appropriate criteria to implement the requirements of the current law. In addition, courts which review appeals from VA decisions should find it easier to identify errors in notification by measuring the notice against clear regulatory criteria. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that veterans, survivors and dependents seeking VA benefits may be provided with clearer and more understandable notices. 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 introduce the proposed Veterans' Notice Clarification Act of 2008. This bill would require VA to issue regulations specifying the content of notices provided to claimants who seek VA benefits and services. Following a number of court decisions, VA's notification letters to veterans 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 letters should use simple ordinary language rather than bureaucratic legalese and they should be focused on the specific type of claim that the veteran is bringing. My bill would require different notice contents depending upon whether the claim is an original claim, a claim to reopen, or a claim for an increase in benefits. VA would also have the discretion to provide additional or alternative contents for notice if appropriate to the benefits sought. For example, an original claim for service- connected compensation may require different content than a claim for a specially adapted housing grant. The notice required for original claims by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act, Public Law 106-475, should provide useful information based on the documents submitted to VA and the benefit sought. The information and evidence requested by VA should be relevant to the claim filed. For example, the information and evidence requested by VA for a claim for disability compensation and financial information concerning claims for pension benefits are wholly different. A veteran should not be made to submit information that is unrelated to his or her claim. I believe that this bill, if enacted, will assist VA in developing appropriate criteria to implement the requirements of the current law. In addition, courts which review appeals from VA decisions should find it easier to identify errors in notification by measuring the notice against clear regulatory criteria. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that veterans, survivors and dependents seeking VA benefits may be provided with clearer and more understandable notices. 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 join with my good friends Senators Ted Stevens, Daniel Inouye, and Lisa Murkowski to introduce legislation to ensure retirement equity for Federal workers in Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. territories. For years, Federal employees in my home state of Hawaii and in other non-foreign areas have been disadvantaged when it comes to their retirement due to a lack of locality pay. Federal workers in those areas may receive a nonforeign cost of living allowance, COLA, based on the differences in the cost of living between those areas and the District off Columbia, but this amount does not count for retirement purposes. Furthermore, while locality rates generally increase, nonforeign COLAs have been gradually declining. This lack of retirement equity has resulted, in several lawsuits against the Federal Government and hinders efforts to recruit and retain Federal workers in those areas. On August 17, 2000, the U.S. District Court of the Virgin Islands approved the settlement of Caraballo v. United States, which was a class-action lawsuit in which employees in the nonforeign areas contested the methodology used by the Office of Personnel Management to determine COLA rates. However, on January 30, 2008, Judge Phillip M. Pro in the U.S. District Court in Honolulu ruled against the Federal employees in Matsuo v. the Office of Personnel Management, which held that excluding Alaska and Hawaii from locality pay did not violate the equal protection clause and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment. Judge Pro acknowledged the disparity in his ruling saying that Congress ``discharged its legislative responsibilities imperfectly'' and recommended that Congress ``correct the incongruity made so evident by this case.'' While this issue has been discussed for years, a solution seemed out of reach given the lack of support for various proposed solutions. Last year, the Administration announced a legislative proposal to phase-out non-foreign COLA and phase-in locality pay. In May 2007 the Administration's draft bill was submitted. The draft bill would freeze nonforeign COLA rates at their current rates at their current rates and OPM would no longer conduct COLA surveys. Over the 7 years following the enactment of the proposal, locality pay would be phased in for General Schedule, GS, employees while nonforeign COLA is phased out. According to OPM, preliminary data indicates that the locality pay rate for Hawaii would be 20 percent. At the end of the 7 year period, if the locality pay rate is less than the amount of nonforeign COLA for a particular area, employees would continue to receive the difference in nonforeign COLA and locality pay until the locality rate reaches the COLA amount. Only at that time would employees no longer receive non- foreign COLA. However, the proposal did not address the impact such a change would have on postal employees, employees who receive special rates, members of the Senior Executive Service, and others who are in agency specific personnel systems or those who do not receive locality pay, such as employees under the National Security Personnel System at the Department of Defense. Knowing of the growing interest in this proposal, I sent staff from my Federal Workforce Subcommittee to Hawaii last July to meet with employees and hear their questions and concerns about the Administration's proposal. Based on the questions and comments I have received, I submitted questions to OPM and other Federal agencies to obtain additional information. I also posted information on the Administration's proposal on my website, a link to a calculator created by OPM for Federal employees to determine exactly how their pay and retirement will be impacted by the proposal, and the agencies' response to my questions. Since then, I have received numerous letters and phone calls from constituents and Federal employees in the nonforeign areas about this issue. While there are still divergent views on this proposal, the vast majority of employees who I have heard from are supportive of a change to locality pay. The legislation I introduce today is a collective effort of Senators Stevens, Inouye, Murkowski, and myself to find an equitable solution to a difficult and divided issue. The Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act is not to be seen as the last word, only the latest step forward toward determining the best way to ensure retirement equity for Federal workers in the nonforeign areas. Our bill seeks to provide answers to the questions raised by the administration's proposal and to cover all employees. Most importantly, our bill seeks to protect employee's take home pay. During this current economic climate, we must be careful to do no harm. Over the Memorial Day recess my subcommittee plans to hold a series of meetings in Hawaii on the Administration's proposal and this bill to hear remaining questions and concerns. I also plan to hold a hearing on these proposals in Honolulu on May 29, 2008. I continue to encourage employees in Alaska, Hawaii, and in the territories to write us with their questions and concerns on these proposals. My ultimate goal remains to ensure that Federal workers in the nonforeign areas are not disadvantaged when it comes to their pay and retirement. 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 join with my good friends Senators Ted Stevens, Daniel Inouye, and Lisa Murkowski to introduce legislation to ensure retirement equity for Federal workers in Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. territories. For years, Federal employees in my home state of Hawaii and in other non-foreign areas have been disadvantaged when it comes to their retirement due to a lack of locality pay. Federal workers in those areas may receive a nonforeign cost of living allowance, COLA, based on the differences in the cost of living between those areas and the District off Columbia, but this amount does not count for retirement purposes. Furthermore, while locality rates generally increase, nonforeign COLAs have been gradually declining. This lack of retirement equity has resulted, in several lawsuits against the Federal Government and hinders efforts to recruit and retain Federal workers in those areas. On August 17, 2000, the U.S. District Court of the Virgin Islands approved the settlement of Caraballo v. United States, which was a class-action lawsuit in which employees in the nonforeign areas contested the methodology used by the Office of Personnel Management to determine COLA rates. However, on January 30, 2008, Judge Phillip M. Pro in the U.S. District Court in Honolulu ruled against the Federal employees in Matsuo v. the Office of Personnel Management, which held that excluding Alaska and Hawaii from locality pay did not violate the equal protection clause and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment. Judge Pro acknowledged the disparity in his ruling saying that Congress ``discharged its legislative responsibilities imperfectly'' and recommended that Congress ``correct the incongruity made so evident by this case.'' While this issue has been discussed for years, a solution seemed out of reach given the lack of support for various proposed solutions. Last year, the Administration announced a legislative proposal to phase-out non-foreign COLA and phase-in locality pay. In May 2007 the Administration's draft bill was submitted. The draft bill would freeze nonforeign COLA rates at their current rates at their current rates and OPM would no longer conduct COLA surveys. Over the 7 years following the enactment of the proposal, locality pay would be phased in for General Schedule, GS, employees while nonforeign COLA is phased out. According to OPM, preliminary data indicates that the locality pay rate for Hawaii would be 20 percent. At the end of the 7 year period, if the locality pay rate is less than the amount of nonforeign COLA for a particular area, employees would continue to receive the difference in nonforeign COLA and locality pay until the locality rate reaches the COLA amount. Only at that time would employees no longer receive non- foreign COLA. However, the proposal did not address the impact such a change would have on postal employees, employees who receive special rates, members of the Senior Executive Service, and others who are in agency specific personnel systems or those who do not receive locality pay, such as employees under the National Security Personnel System at the Department of Defense. Knowing of the growing interest in this proposal, I sent staff from my Federal Workforce Subcommittee to Hawaii last July to meet with employees and hear their questions and concerns about the Administration's proposal. Based on the questions and comments I have received, I submitted questions to OPM and other Federal agencies to obtain additional information. I also posted information on the Administration's proposal on my website, a link to a calculator created by OPM for Federal employees to determine exactly how their pay and retirement will be impacted by the proposal, and the agencies' response to my questions. Since then, I have received numerous letters and phone calls from constituents and Federal employees in the nonforeign areas about this issue. While there are still divergent views on this proposal, the vast majority of employees who I have heard from are supportive of a change to locality pay. The legislation I introduce today is a collective effort of Senators Stevens, Inouye, Murkowski, and myself to find an equitable solution to a difficult and divided issue. The Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act is not to be seen as the last word, only the latest step forward toward determining the best way to ensure retirement equity for Federal workers in the nonforeign areas. Our bill seeks to provide answers to the questions raised by the administration's proposal and to cover all employees. Most importantly, our bill seeks to protect employee's take home pay. During this current economic climate, we must be careful to do no harm. Over the Memorial Day recess my subcommittee plans to hold a series of meetings in Hawaii on the Administration's proposal and this bill to hear remaining questions and concerns. I also plan to hold a hearing on these proposals in Honolulu on May 29, 2008. I continue to encourage employees in Alaska, Hawaii, and in the territories to write us with their questions and concerns on these proposals. My ultimate goal remains to ensure that Federal workers in the nonforeign areas are not disadvantaged when it comes to their pay and retirement. 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 proudly introduce, along with my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Senator Daniel Inouye, the Native American Veterans Access Act. This measure would provide equitable veterans' services to Native Americans by allowing tribal governments to apply for veterans' program grants currently limited to States, and in some cases, even U.S. Territories. Native veterans have a long history of honorable and extraordinary service in our national defense. From the American Indians who served alongside General George Washington, to Nainoa Hoe, a Native Hawaiian soldier who was killed on patrol in Iraq while carrying the battle flag his father held in Vietnam, native veterans have served bravely and honorably. Unfortunately, too often our Nation's track record in serving native veterans does not match their service. Especially in the case of native veterans who return to their ancestral homelands, reservation communities, or tribal villages, many native veterans are geographically and culturally disconnected from the services provided by State and Federal veterans' programs. Part of the problem is that veterans' programs are not always designed with native veterans in mind. For example, while the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Labor operate several exemplary veterans' grant programs for State governments, most of these programs are not open to tribal governments. The bill I am introducing today would address this issue, by giving tribal governments access to many of these important programs. First, my bill would provide access to VA's two nursing home grants, which help local governments construct veterans' nursing homes and pay for nursing home care, adult day care, domiciliary care, and hospital care. It is important that tribal governments be included in these grants, given the expected rise in the number of older native veterans. The U.S. Census projects that while the overall number of older veterans will decrease by 10 percent by 2020, during that same period the number of older native veterans will increase by 60 percent. This expected boom in older native veterans makes it important that we give tribal governments the same opportunities we already provide State governments to care for their elder veterans. My bill would also give the Secretary of Labor discretion to include tribal governments in Veterans Employment and Training programs and grants. Veterans' employment services are much needed among native veterans, and in Indian Country. Census data indicates that American Indian and Alaska Native veterans are twice as likely as other veterans to be unemployed. For those veterans living on-reservation, the labor market is shamefully dismal: a recently published report from the Bureau of Indian Affairs found on-reservation unemployment to be 49 percent. That unemployment rate is twice as high as national unemployment was during the worst year of the Great Depression. Surely it is not too much to ask that tribal governments in these circumstances be considered for the veterans' employment programs States and U.S. Territories already have access to. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting these measures, as we work towards parity in access and benefits for Native American veterans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I proudly introduce, along with my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Senator Daniel Inouye, the Native American Veterans Access Act. This measure would provide equitable veterans' services to Native Americans by allowing tribal governments to apply for veterans' program grants currently limited to States, and in some cases, even U.S. Territories. Native veterans have a long history of honorable and extraordinary service in our national defense. From the American Indians who served alongside General George Washington, to Nainoa Hoe, a Native Hawaiian soldier who was killed on patrol in Iraq while carrying the battle flag his father held in Vietnam, native veterans have served bravely and honorably. Unfortunately, too often our Nation's track record in serving native veterans does not match their service. Especially in the case of native veterans who return to their ancestral homelands, reservation communities, or tribal villages, many native veterans are geographically and culturally disconnected from the services provided by State and Federal veterans' programs. Part of the problem is that veterans' programs are not always designed with native veterans in mind. For example, while the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Labor operate several exemplary veterans' grant programs for State governments, most of these programs are not open to tribal governments. The bill I am introducing today would address this issue, by giving tribal governments access to many of these important programs. First, my bill would provide access to VA's two nursing home grants, which help local governments construct veterans' nursing homes and pay for nursing home care, adult day care, domiciliary care, and hospital care. It is important that tribal governments be included in these grants, given the expected rise in the number of older native veterans. The U.S. Census projects that while the overall number of older veterans will decrease by 10 percent by 2020, during that same period the number of older native veterans will increase by 60 percent. This expected boom in older native veterans makes it important that we give tribal governments the same opportunities we already provide State governments to care for their elder veterans. My bill would also give the Secretary of Labor discretion to include tribal governments in Veterans Employment and Training programs and grants. Veterans' employment services are much needed among native veterans, and in Indian Country. Census data indicates that American Indian and Alaska Native veterans are twice as likely as other veterans to be unemployed. For those veterans living on-reservation, the labor market is shamefully dismal: a recently published report from the Bureau of Indian Affairs found on-reservation unemployment to be 49 percent. That unemployment rate is twice as high as national unemployment was during the worst year of the Great Depression. Surely it is not too much to ask that tribal governments in these circumstances be considered for the veterans' employment programs States and U.S. Territories already have access to. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting these measures, as we work towards parity in access and benefits for Native American veterans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, Senator Inouye and I celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. The Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard has held a significant place in both Hawaii and our Nation's history. Even before Congress passed an act in 1908 officially creating the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard, Pearl Harbor has been an important port for ships and sailors from across the world. Early in the 19th century, Pearl Harbor, or ``Wai-Momi,'' served as a primary port for exploration and trade. By the late 1800s, the United States was looking toward Pearl Harbor to serve as the center of its expanding Pacific Fleet. On May 13, 1908, Congress solidified Pearl Harbor's strategic importance by appropriating $3 million to officially establish the Navy Yard at Pearl Harbor. Over the next 33 years, the new naval facility at Pearl Harbor was transformed into a site capable of basing the then-newly formed U.S. Pacific Fleet, and changed the face of Hawaii in the Pacific forever. Every schoolchild in the United States learns about the events on the morning of December 7, 1941. That was the day the U.S. Naval forces at Pearl Harbor were devastated by the Imperial Japanese Navy's surprise attack. Nine ships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet sank, and more than 2,300 American lives were lost. However, our children are taught far less often about the courageous resolve and dedication demonstrated by the shipyard's employees. After resurrecting much of the fleet from the bottom of Pearl Harbor, and repairing 18 of 21 severely damaged vessels, the workers earned the motto, ``We Keep Them Fit to Fight.'' Their commitment to duty became a model of the U.S. war effort during World War II. The effort and hard work by Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard personnel to maintain the ships of the U.S. Navy helped to turn the tide of war at sea in the Battle of Midway. Their tireless work ultimately ensured that of the ships damaged on December 7, salvaged, repaired, and returned to service, one, the USS West Virginia, survived the duration of the war to sail triumphantly into Tokyo Bay in August 1945. The integrity, ethos, and determination of Pearl Harbor Shipyard workers continued throughout the Cold War, and provided the United States with a national treasure and a strategically critical base of operations for Pacific naval and air power.

Mr. AKAKA. Honor, courage, and commitment are the core values of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. These words speak volumes about both the local and national contributions of the proud men and women who have served under its banner. I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring these outstanding Americans by celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, and to wish it as much success over the next century as it attained during the last.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation requested by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as a courtesy to the Secretary. Except in unusual circumstances, it is my practice to introduce legislation requested by the Administration so that such measures will be available for review and consideration. The Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2008 consists of several provisions addressing a range of VA care and services. Title I entails adjustments to education benefits currently offered by VA. Title II addresses disability claims adjudication, memorials affairs, insurance and specially adapted housing. Title III addresses health care matters, including nursing home care, contract-care payment, personnel pay and disclosure of private information and medical records. Title IV addresses VA police officers and VA medical facility leases. Title I of the bill would make several administrative and housekeeping changes to VA's education programs, allowing for faster and more efficient claims adjudication. Among other changes, this title would eliminate the requirement that a student file an application with VA upon changing his or her program of study while remaining enrolled at the same school and eliminate the requirement that wages must be earned in order to participate in VA's full-time on-job training, OJT, program. Title II would make changes to disability claims adjudication, memorial affairs, insurance and specially adapted housing. Specifically, it would explicitly authorize VA to stay temporarily its adjudication of a pending claim before a VA regional office or the Board of Veterans' Appeals, when a Federal Circuit appeal on the relevant issue is pending. It would also authorize the Board to decide cases out of docket-number order when a case has been stayed or when there is sufficient evidence to decide a claim, but a claim with an earlier docket number is not ready for decision. This title of the bill would also extend full-time and family SGLI coverage to Individual Ready Reservists. Title III pertains to health care matters, including nursing home care, contract-care payment, personnel pay and disclosure of private information and medical records. It would make permanent VA's authority to provide non-institutional extended care services either directly, by contract, or by another provider or payor. It would also extend VA's obligation to provide nursing home care to veterans with a service- connected disability rated at 70 percent or greater until December 31, 2013, and VA's authority to establish non-profit research corporations through the same date. This title would also repeal requirements that VA produce certain reports and make permanent VA's authority to assign enrollment priority category 6 to those veterans who participated in chemical and biological warfare testing at DOD's Deseret Test Center from 1962 to 1973. The fourth and final title of this bill would permit VA police officers to carry firearms and conduct investigations of crimes that occurred on VA property, while off VA property in an official capacity. It also would increase the uniform allowance of VA police officers, to ensure they do not have to pay out-of-pocket for uniform maintenance. Finally, it would raise the threshold for congressional authorization for major medical facility leases from $600,000 to $1,000,000. I am introducing this bill for the review and consideration of my colleagues at the request of the Administration. As Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have not taken a position on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation requested by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as a courtesy to the Secretary. Except in unusual circumstances, it is my practice to introduce legislation requested by the Administration so that such measures will be available for review and consideration. The Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2008 consists of several provisions addressing a range of VA care and services. Title I entails adjustments to education benefits currently offered by VA. Title II addresses disability claims adjudication, memorials affairs, insurance and specially adapted housing. Title III addresses health care matters, including nursing home care, contract-care payment, personnel pay and disclosure of private information and medical records. Title IV addresses VA police officers and VA medical facility leases. Title I of the bill would make several administrative and housekeeping changes to VA's education programs, allowing for faster and more efficient claims adjudication. Among other changes, this title would eliminate the requirement that a student file an application with VA upon changing his or her program of study while remaining enrolled at the same school and eliminate the requirement that wages must be earned in order to participate in VA's full-time on-job training, OJT, program. Title II would make changes to disability claims adjudication, memorial affairs, insurance and specially adapted housing. Specifically, it would explicitly authorize VA to stay temporarily its adjudication of a pending claim before a VA regional office or the Board of Veterans' Appeals, when a Federal Circuit appeal on the relevant issue is pending. It would also authorize the Board to decide cases out of docket-number order when a case has been stayed or when there is sufficient evidence to decide a claim, but a claim with an earlier docket number is not ready for decision. This title of the bill would also extend full-time and family SGLI coverage to Individual Ready Reservists. Title III pertains to health care matters, including nursing home care, contract-care payment, personnel pay and disclosure of private information and medical records. It would make permanent VA's authority to provide non-institutional extended care services either directly, by contract, or by another provider or payor. It would also extend VA's obligation to provide nursing home care to veterans with a service- connected disability rated at 70 percent or greater until December 31, 2013, and VA's authority to establish non-profit research corporations through the same date. This title would also repeal requirements that VA produce certain reports and make permanent VA's authority to assign enrollment priority category 6 to those veterans who participated in chemical and biological warfare testing at DOD's Deseret Test Center from 1962 to 1973. The fourth and final title of this bill would permit VA police officers to carry firearms and conduct investigations of crimes that occurred on VA property, while off VA property in an official capacity. It also would increase the uniform allowance of VA police officers, to ensure they do not have to pay out-of-pocket for uniform maintenance. Finally, it would raise the threshold for congressional authorization for major medical facility leases from $600,000 to $1,000,000. I am introducing this bill for the review and consideration of my colleagues at the request of the Administration. As Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have not taken a position on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that will offer veterans more options for refinancing their mortgages. My legislation would raise the guarantee on VA refinance loans and decrease equity requirements for refinancing to a VA loan. These provisions would allow more qualified veterans to refinance their home loans under the VA program. At present, the maximum VA loan guaranty limit for all loans in excess of $144,000, except regular refinance loans, is equal to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit for a single family home. Presently this is $104,250. This means lenders making loans up to $417,000 will receive at least a 25 percent guaranty, which is typically required to place the loan on the secondary market. However, current law limits to $36,000 the guaranty that can be used for a regular refinance loan. This restriction means a refinance over $144,000 will result in a lender not receiving 25 percent backing from VA and probably not making the loan at all. This situation essentially precludes a veteran from being able to refinance his or her existing FHA or conventional loan into a VA guaranteed loan if the loan is greater than $144,000. To assist veterans in overcoming this obstacle in refinancing, this legislation would increase the maximum guaranty limit for refinance loans to the same level as conventional loans--25 percent limit for a single family home. Importantly, this increase would make the maximum VA home loan guaranty equal across the board. This bill will also increase the percentage of an existing loan that VA will refinance from the current maximum of 90 percent to 95 percent, thus allowing more veterans to use their VA benefit to refinance their mortgages. Many veterans do not have ten percent equity and thus are precluded from refinancing to a VA home loan. Given the anticipated number of non-VA adjustable mortgages that are approaching the reset time when payments are likely to increase, it seems prudent to facilitate veterans refinancing to VA loans. In light of today's housing and home loan crises, these further refinancing options will help some veterans to bridge financial gaps and allow them to stay in their homes and escape possible foreclosures. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address personnel issues in the Department of Veterans Affairs. This legislation, proposed Veterans' Medical Personnel Recruitment and Retention Act of 2008, would help ensure that VA has the workforce necessary to serve America's veterans most effectively. Health care providers are the backbone of the VA system. Yet today, the Department faces a shortage of these professionals. Around the country, too many facilities are understaffed, at the cost of services for veterans. A recent report by the Partnership for Public Service gave the Veterans Health Administration poor marks for pay and benefits, and for family support. VHA also rated poorly among younger employees. To be the health care employer of choice, VA must be able to offer competitive salaries, work schedules, and benefits. As Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I held a hearing on April 9, 2008, that focused on personnel issues within the VA health care system. We heard detailed testimony from VA administrators and health care providers. Their testimony outlined the challenges VA faces, and suggested possible solutions. This legislation would benefit a wide range of positions within VA. Here are some of the challenges VA faces, and the solutions I propose. Local labor markets for health care providers vary widely, and VA must be better prepared to compete in every market. Locality pay surveys are a crucial tool in this effort. However, a recent GAO report on nurse anesthetists revealed a locality pay system that is inconsistent and often dysfunctional. The bill I am introducing would make implementation of locality pay surveys more effective by requiring additional training on proper implementation, and improving transparency to allow for better oversight. This legislation would also encourage retention of experienced professionals by removing salary offsets for retired employees who choose to return to work at VA. In the coming years, a significant portion of the VA workforce will reach the age of retirement. Eliminating the salary offset by the amount of an employee's retirement annuity would encourage these experienced professionals to return to VA. Education benefits are often among the chief advantages of employment at VA, and I believe these benefits can be used for an even greater effect. VA has extensive programs to encourage further education within their workforce, and to provide financial assistance for employees with educational debt. This legislation would increase yearly benefit limits on the Education Debt Reduction Program--EDRP--and would broaden the goals of that program to include retention as well as recruitment. In so doing, the EDRP would be made available to both long-time VA employees and new hires. It would also reauthorize the Health Professionals Scholarship Program, and would broaden eligibility to a wider range of health professions. Further, to make VA more attractive to clinical researchers, this legislation would provide VA with authorities similar to the Loan Repayment Program of the National Health Service Corps. VA would be authorized to use funds from medical services appropriations to help researchers in need of financial assistance to payoff their education loans. This program would compliment EDRP, which is not available to researchers. In recent years, VA has been challenged to retain top administrators, especially those who have spent their careers at VA. Their expert knowledge is indispensable to the effective management of the VA health care system. However, given the high rates of compensation available outside of VA, retention of these professionals is often difficult. This legislation would provide VA with the authority to pay national administrators additional compensation so as to better compete with the private sector. It would also give VA the authority to increase, under limited circumstances, compensation for pharmacists, doctors, and dentists, in order for VA to be more competitive in local labor markets. VA faces many challenges in recruiting and retaining nurses. I have worked with VA administrators and nurses to develop solutions to these challenges. This legislation would give VA more tools to attract and keep these employees. Alternative work schedules are now commonly available in other health care systems. At VA, part-time and alternative work schedules are under-utilized, and as a result, VA loses prospective hires and damages employee morale. This legislation would clarify alternative work schedule and weekend duty rules. By making these schedules easier to implement, it is my hope that VA will expand their use. This bill would also make it easier for VA to hire and retain part- time nurses by limiting probationary periods and expanding eligibility for overtime pay. For nurses who transition from full-time to part- time, this legislation would eliminate the probationary period they are now required to serve. This provision would be extremely helpful in encouraging experienced nurses to extend their careers at VA beyond the customary age of retirement. In many locations, VA cannot compete with other health care systems for many nursing positions, particularly certified registered nurse anesthetists--CRNAs--and licensed practical and vocational nurses. A recent GAO report on CRNAs in VA noted that VA spends thousands of dollars on contract nurses to cover staffing gaps. The use of contract nurses, while appropriate in some situations, is not a permanent solution to the long-term staffing shortfall. The bill I am introducing would raise or eliminate pay caps currently placed on these difficult- to-fill positions. These provisions are derived directly from testimony the Committee heard from VA nurses and administrators at the April 9, 2008, hearing. This legislation would also clarify rules about emergency duty for VA nurses. The use of emergency mandatory overtime has been an issue in many VA facilities, and in other health care systems. I believe this legislation provides a reasonable solution. By standardizing the definition of ``emergency,'' it would facilitate more consistent and equitable use of emergency mandatory overtime. I believe that this legislation will give VA the tools it needs to recruit and retain the best health care professionals in the Nation. I also anticipate that it will improve employee morale, as well as improving transparency and oversight. As we have heard many times, VA faces a looming retirement crisis. The solutions proposed in this legislation seek to address these challenges. I urge my colleagues to support the proposed Veterans' Medical Personnel Recruitment and Retention Act of 2008. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.