Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing today the proposed Training and Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans Enhancement Act of 2008. This measure would make two small but, I believe, necessary changes in the Department of Veterans' Affairs program of Independent Living services conducted under the authority of chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code. VA's IL Program was first established in 1980 by Public Law 96-466, the Veterans Rehabilitation and Education Amendments of 1980. Initially, that law provided for the establishment of a 4-year pilot program designed to provide independent living services for severely disabled veterans for whom the achievement of a vocational goal was not reasonably feasible. The number of veterans who could be accepted annually into the pilot program was capped at 500. In 1986, the program was extended through 1989 and then, in 1989, it was made in Public Law 101-237, the Veterans' Benefits Amendments of 1989. In 2001, the 500 annual cap on enrollees was increased to 2,500. The measure I am introducing would remove any cap on the number of enrollees in any year. In earlier years, as a pilot project, the cap may have been appropriate in order to give VA an opportunity to manage the program in the most effective manner possible and in 2001, it made sense to increase that cap in light of the increased demand and need for the program. Now, however, it makes sense to lift the cap altogether. This is especially so since this important program is designed to meet the needs of the most severely service-connected disabled veterans and more and more of those returning from combat have suffered the kind of devastating injuries that may make employment not reasonably feasible for extended periods of time. The VA's Inspector General found, in a report issued in December of last year, that ``the effect of the statutory cap has been to delay IL services to severely disabled veterans.'' This delay happens because VA has developed a procedure that holds veterans in a planning and evaluation stage when the statutory cap may be in danger of being exceeded. The bill I am introducing today would eliminate the cap entirely as recommended by VA's IG. It would also make the program mandatory rather than a discretionary pilot effort and would include improvement in quality of life an objective of training and rehabilitation for veterans with service-connected disability who are participating in programs of IL services. For these veterans--with respect to whom it has been determined that employment is not a present, reasonably feasible option but one that may be feasible in the future--it seems appropriate to look not only at future employment prospects but also toward improving the individual's quality of life. Such an approach may very well lead to bettering an individual's chances of rehabilitation and future employment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing today the proposed Training and Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans Enhancement Act of 2008. This measure would make two small but, I believe, necessary changes in the Department of Veterans' Affairs program of Independent Living services conducted under the authority of chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code. VA's IL Program was first established in 1980 by Public Law 96-466, the Veterans Rehabilitation and Education Amendments of 1980. Initially, that law provided for the establishment of a 4-year pilot program designed to provide independent living services for severely disabled veterans for whom the achievement of a vocational goal was not reasonably feasible. The number of veterans who could be accepted annually into the pilot program was capped at 500. In 1986, the program was extended through 1989 and then, in 1989, it was made in Public Law 101-237, the Veterans' Benefits Amendments of 1989. In 2001, the 500 annual cap on enrollees was increased to 2,500. The measure I am introducing would remove any cap on the number of enrollees in any year. In earlier years, as a pilot project, the cap may have been appropriate in order to give VA an opportunity to manage the program in the most effective manner possible and in 2001, it made sense to increase that cap in light of the increased demand and need for the program. Now, however, it makes sense to lift the cap altogether. This is especially so since this important program is designed to meet the needs of the most severely service-connected disabled veterans and more and more of those returning from combat have suffered the kind of devastating injuries that may make employment not reasonably feasible for extended periods of time. The VA's Inspector General found, in a report issued in December of last year, that ``the effect of the statutory cap has been to delay IL services to severely disabled veterans.'' This delay happens because VA has developed a procedure that holds veterans in a planning and evaluation stage when the statutory cap may be in danger of being exceeded. The bill I am introducing today would eliminate the cap entirely as recommended by VA's IG. It would also make the program mandatory rather than a discretionary pilot effort and would include improvement in quality of life an objective of training and rehabilitation for veterans with service-connected disability who are participating in programs of IL services. For these veterans--with respect to whom it has been determined that employment is not a present, reasonably feasible option but one that may be feasible in the future--it seems appropriate to look not only at future employment prospects but also toward improving the individual's quality of life. Such an approach may very well lead to bettering an individual's chances of rehabilitation and future employment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, today, I express my support of S. 2739, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act. I commend the chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for their leadership and the work of their staff on this important legislation. This bill represents a bicameral-and-bipartisan supported package of bills. It has many good initiatives that demonstrate our commitment to be responsible stewards of our national treasures and historic sites. The legislation also has targeted provisions that address unique circumstances and issues occurring in the Pacific region. I express my support for titles VII and VIII of S. 2739 that relate to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI, and the Freely Associated States, the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. The CNMI is a group of islands located east of the Philippines and south of Japan. Following World War II, the United States administered the islands under a United Nations trusteeship. In 1975, the people of the CNMI voted for a political union with the United States. The 1976 covenant enacted by Congress gave U.S. citizenship to CNMI residents and extended most U.S. laws to the CNMI. However, the covenant exempted the CNMI from U.S. immigration law. As a result of the CNMI's policies, today the population has increased fivefold, from 16,000 to 80,000. This growth has made both U.S. citizens, and the indigenous people of the islands, minorities in their own communities. This legislation meets the Federal Government's interest in further implementation of the covenant, securing our borders, and in the establishment of stable immigration and labor policies on which the CNMI can build its future. The provisions included in title VII are identical to those passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on December 11, 2007. As the sponsor of the companion CNMI bill, I am pleased to report the CNMI provisions contained in S. 2739 are sensitive to the special circumstances and to the current economic downturn in the CNMI. The legislation provides a basis to transition the CNMI to Federal immigration laws, while protecting the local economy. These provisions are crucial to address the immigration abuses that have persisted in the CNMI for the past 20 years. As chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, I am particularly pleased to join Senator Wyden in including a provision on cooperative agreements that will protect the natural resources on our national parks. Title III of S. 2739 will give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to enter agreements with Federal, public, nonprofit organizations, and even private landowners to protect our coasts, wetlands, and watersheds contained within and outside of national park boundaries. This act supports collaborative efforts that will greatly benefit generations of park visitors. Just as important as having cooperative agreements is the ability of these entities to work together and use them to combat the spread of invasive species. Invasive species are one of the greatest threats to our natural and cultural heritage. Invasive species are the primary cause of decline in Hawaii's threatened and endangered species, and cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to Hawaii's agricultural industry, tourism, real estate, and water quality. One very successful public-private partnership in my State is occurring at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the island of Hawaii. The Ola'a-Kilauea Partnership is a cooperative land management effort involving State and Federal entities and willing private landowners. This partnership has jointly fenced 14,100 acres on State and private lands and eliminated the feral pig population from 9,800, while also controlling feral pigs in an additional 4,300 acres. There are other examples, such as efforts on the island of Maui. I am proud to mention the work of the Maui Invasive Species Committee, which brings together the resources of individuals, and the Federal and State governments to collaborate and combat invasive species. One of the barriers they have faced in the past is the inability to spend Federal funds on projects that treat invasive species on lands adjacent to national park borders, where there is a clear and direct benefit to parks. This bill will provide the necessary authorization to support such efforts. This is especially vital as such cooperative agreements focus cooperative action to reduce invasive species on our national parks and other lands across the country. The cooperative agreement provisions of Title III provide a very important step in controlling invasive species that are crossing geographic and jurisdictional boundaries. Land managers and other involved governments and organizations will have another tool to help address their invasive species management issues. Also it will allow the Secretary of the Department of Interior to protect park resources through collaborative efforts in lands within and outside of National Park System units. I stand in strong support for the Consolidated Natural Resources Act. I encourage my colleagues to join in keeping our precious national resources and historic sites available for future generations, as well as meeting the needs of the Pacific region.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. I thank Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby for their work to develop a meaningful bill to help address the housing crisis in our country. Too many working families are losing their homes, credit access has been significantly reduced, and our economy has slowed. This act will help alleviate the challenges faced by homeowners. Hawaii's foreclosure rate increased by more than 88 percent last year, for a total of 1,270 families who had their homes foreclosed. The loss of a family home can be financially and emotionally devastating. Compared with other States, Hawaii has not suffered as much during this housing crisis. However, foreclosure statistics do not reflect the many families who are having difficulties making mortgage payments after their adjustable interest rate mortgage reset or having to sell at a significant loss due to an unexpected transfer or a loss of a job. This much needed bipartisan legislation will help protect homeowners across the country, prevent foreclosures, and assist our Nation's veterans. This legislation will modernize and improve the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, to provide homeowners with additional access to fixed rate mortgages. Additional resources will be provided by this bill for housing counseling to assist homeowners in finding solutions to their difficult situations. In addition, mortgage disclosures will be made more meaningful to consumers by this bill. I also appreciate the inclusion of a provision that is derived from legislation that I introduced last month, S. 2768. That legislation would correct an oversight in the Economic Stimulus Act and extend the temporary home loan guaranty increase to veterans so that more of them can realize the dream of home ownership. The VA Home Loan Guaranty was part of the original GI bill in 1944. It was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and provided veterans with a federally guaranteed home loan with no down payment. So as World War II was ending, landmark legislation made the dream of home ownership a reality for millions of returning veterans. Today, more than 25 million veterans and servicemembers are eligible for VA home loan guarantees. The amount of the home loan guaranty was last adjusted by the Veterans Benefits Act of 2004. The maximum guaranty amount was increased 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. Using that formula, since the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit for a single family residence in 2008 is $417,000, VA will guarantee a veteran's loan up to $104,250, or 25 percent of the Freddie Mac limit. This guaranty exempts homeowners from having to make a down payment or secure private mortgage insurance. The newly enacted Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, however, temporarily reset the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA home loan guarantee limits to 125 percent of metropolitan-area median home prices, without reference to the VA home loan program. This had the effect of raising the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac limits to nearly $730,000 in the highest cost areas, while leaving the VA limit of $417,000 in place. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure so that this important group of Americans may benefit from an increased home loan guaranty in this time of economic uncertainty. This legislation would also increase benefits for specially adapted housing for disabled veterans. This legislation would authorize VA to pay an additional $10,000 to those eligible for assistance pursuant to section 2101(a), title 38, United States Code, increasing the total amount of funds available per grant to $60,000. Individuals eligible for assistance pursuant to section 2101(b) would be able to receive an additional $2,000 in assistance, increasing the total amount of funds available per grant to $12,000. Increases in housing and home adaptation grants have been infrequent, despite the fact that real estate and construction costs are continually on the rise. Unless the amounts of the grants are adjusted, inflation erodes the value and effectiveness of these benefits, making it more difficult for beneficiaries to afford the accommodations they need. This provision would go a long way in making certain that specially adapted housing benefits meet the current needs of America's veterans. We must enact this legislation quickly to help homeowners remain in their homes, stabilize the economy, and provide much needed improvements to veterans' housing benefits.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Veterans' Compensation Equity Act of 2008. This legislation would mandate fair and equitable ratings for veterans whose disabilities require continuous medication or the use of adaptive devices, such as hearing aids. Specifically, the bill would require that all veterans who receive continuous medication or require use of one or more adaptive devices, such as hearing aids, prescribed by the Department of Veterans Affairs or other licensed health care provider for treatment of a service- connected disability, shall be rated at not less than 10 percent. The amount of compensation veterans with service-connected conditions receive is based on a disability rating, which VA assigns. VA uses its rating schedule to determine which rating to assign to a veteran's particular condition. Currently the rating schedule provides a minimum compensable rating of 10 percent or higher for most but not all disabilities that require continuous medication. I do not see any reason why one veteran who requires continuous medication for treatment of a service-connected disability, such as diabetes or asthma, should receive a compensable rating and another veteran who requires continuous medication for treatment of another disability, such as hypertension or chronic sinusitis, is assigned a zero percent rating and receives no compensation. This legislation would also provide a minimum compensable rating when a veteran requires the use of a hearing aid or other adaptive device, but is nonetheless assigned a noncompensable rating under the current rating schedule. The use of adaptive devices prescribed by a Department of Veterans Affairs or other licensed health care provider for treatment of a service-connected condition would result in a rating of at least 10 percent. It is important that veterans who are disabled as a result of military service are compensated in a fair and equitable manner. Providing different compensation for different medical conditions that all require continuous medication or adaptive devices is not just. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that veterans seeking compensation will be treated in a fair and equitable manner. 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 Veterans' Compensation Equity Act of 2008. This legislation would mandate fair and equitable ratings for veterans whose disabilities require continuous medication or the use of adaptive devices, such as hearing aids. Specifically, the bill would require that all veterans who receive continuous medication or require use of one or more adaptive devices, such as hearing aids, prescribed by the Department of Veterans Affairs or other licensed health care provider for treatment of a service- connected disability, shall be rated at not less than 10 percent. The amount of compensation veterans with service-connected conditions receive is based on a disability rating, which VA assigns. VA uses its rating schedule to determine which rating to assign to a veteran's particular condition. Currently the rating schedule provides a minimum compensable rating of 10 percent or higher for most but not all disabilities that require continuous medication. I do not see any reason why one veteran who requires continuous medication for treatment of a service-connected disability, such as diabetes or asthma, should receive a compensable rating and another veteran who requires continuous medication for treatment of another disability, such as hypertension or chronic sinusitis, is assigned a zero percent rating and receives no compensation. This legislation would also provide a minimum compensable rating when a veteran requires the use of a hearing aid or other adaptive device, but is nonetheless assigned a noncompensable rating under the current rating schedule. The use of adaptive devices prescribed by a Department of Veterans Affairs or other licensed health care provider for treatment of a service-connected condition would result in a rating of at least 10 percent. It is important that veterans who are disabled as a result of military service are compensated in a fair and equitable manner. Providing different compensation for different medical conditions that all require continuous medication or adaptive devices is not just. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that veterans seeking compensation will be treated in a fair and equitable manner. 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 support a bill offered by my good friend Senator Voinovich to treat the appointment of the chief Human Capital Officer, CHCO, at the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, the same as all other CHCO appointments. As part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress established CHCOs at Federal agencies to improve workforce planning so agencies could better meet their omissions. Agencies were given the discretion whether to designate the position as a political appointment or career civil servant. However, the act required the CHCO at DHS to be a political appointee nominated by the President. Where most agencies can select political or career positions without having to go through an external source, DHS has to go outside its walls to have the President select a person for this position. Throughout the Federal Government, the mix of political and career CHCOs is almost equal. The important factor is that each agency has the discretion to choose whether the CHCO position best fits into the framework of the agency and its human capital strategy as a political or civilian employee. DHS by statute does not have this flexibility. As such, we believe that DHS should be treated like all other Federal agencies and have the discretion whether to make the position a political or career civil service job. Our bill would make the requirements for the CHCO position uniform for all agencies. DHS has faced many management challenges and integration issues. The DHS CHCO office has been working diligently to address the human capital challenges within DHS and through the CHCO Council. The DHS CHCO has partnered with other agencies to discover best practices and tackle difficult issues of succession planning, administration transition planning, hiring strategies, and workforce flexibilities. CHCOs' work is critical to the support of effective government management and strategic workforce planning. Given DHS's critical mission and the fact that it continues to remain on the Government Accountability Office High-Risk List, it is important to give DHS the same flexibility as other Federal agencies in appointing its CHCO. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution honoring the dedication, commitment, and noble service of Federal, State, and local government employees during Public Service Recognition Week. For the past 23 years, the first full week of May is reserved to recognize the men and women of the military and civilian workforces diligently serving our Nation and celebrate their achievements. Throughout the history of this Nation, public servants have been the first in many fields. Public servants are the first to respond to an emergency. They were the first to walk on the moon, the first to subnavigate the North Pole, and the driving force behind the creation of the Internet. However, there are lesser known achievements of public servants that improve all of our lives. Researchers at NIH were the first to make a discovery that lead to the Human Papillomavirus vaccine. They were the first to create a program allowing States and localities to analyze DNA evidence on thousands of cases. And, they have been the first to discover hormones produced by the heart that have profound benefits in treating many deadly diseases. Public Service Recognition Week is a time for all Americans to recognize the contributions which public servants make to this country that are often overlooked. We are familiar with the police officers who patrol our streets, the teachers who teach our children, the public officials we elect to govern, and the war fighters so bravely defending our country. However, there are many other public servants who protect and care for our National Parks, provide care to veterans, protect the water we drink, build the roads we drive on, archive American history and the American experience, and curate our public museums that work behind the scenes without much attention or praise. These are just some of the silent servants who are the backbone of America. Public servants have chosen a career path that does not often exalt or glorify their work. We rarely hear about the support the civilians in the Department of Defense are providing to the military during this time of war or the doctors and nurses at the Veterans' Affairs Administration who provide care to the many men and women returning home from combat while struggling with insufficient resources. PSR week is a time we thank them for their service and recognize their efforts. This week is not just a time for us to honor their work, but a time for us to get to know the groundbreaking efforts made by the military and civil servants. Across the country, mayors, State governments, Governors, county governments, and many other civic organizations are participating in Public Service Recognition Week through proclamations, honorary events, awards, and exhibits. In Washington, DC, Federal agencies are coming together on the National Mall to demonstrate to the public all that they do for America. The military will show its might with planes, helicopters, tanks, and other machinery located throughout the exhibit. The civil service will show innovations in scientific research, advances in criminal detection and law enforcement, and ways it is improving the lives of Americans everyday. We sit on the edge of great change in the Federal workforce. According to the Office of Personnel Management, an estimated 40 percent of the 1.8 million federal employees will retire in the next 10 years as many more become eligible to retire. According to a number of recent reports published by the Partnership for Public Service, we know that young people want meaning in their careers. They can find both meaning and nobility in public service. Our challenge is to show the next generation of employees that public service offers a range of options for meaningful experiences and dynamic opportunities. As we celebrate the 24th annual Public Service Recognition Week May 5-11, I encourage all Americans to take time out of their busy schedules to learn more about the work of public servants and recognize them for their commitment and dedication.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation requested by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as a courtesy to the Secretary and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 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. This ``by-request'' bill would authorize $1.87 billion in construction projects in various areas of the country in fiscal year 2009. It also would authorize one new polytrauma center in San Antonio, TX, and upgrades to the polytrauma center in Palo Alto, CA. The bill would also extend and increase the total authorizations for new VA Medical Centers in Denver, CO, and New Orleans, LA. Finally, this bill authorizes $60 million in leases for 12 outpatient clinics in various States and territories. 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 transmittal letter 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 and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 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. This ``by-request'' bill would authorize $1.87 billion in construction projects in various areas of the country in fiscal year 2009. It also would authorize one new polytrauma center in San Antonio, TX, and upgrades to the polytrauma center in Palo Alto, CA. The bill would also extend and increase the total authorizations for new VA Medical Centers in Denver, CO, and New Orleans, LA. Finally, this bill authorizes $60 million in leases for 12 outpatient clinics in various States and territories. 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 transmittal letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will help the Department of Veterans Affairs reach out to underserved veterans, through collaboration with community organizations. The Department of Veterans Affairs is the second largest cabinet level Federal department, operating the Nation's largest health care system. VA provides benefits and health care to millions of veterans and their families every year. Without question, VA helps countless veterans through its various programs every day, largely thanks to its employees, who make it their mission to serve those who served their country honorably. Unfortunately, while VA makes a positive impact on the veterans it serves, many others are left underserved. Far too often, these are veterans already in difficult circumstances, those who could benefit most from VA support. For example, veterans from rural areas must do without the kind of local support systems urban and suburban veterans often enjoy. Many veterans from racial and ethnic minority groups also remain underserved by VA, regardless of their physical proximity to veterans' programs. More must be done for these veterans, who look at VA and see a system either out of reach or out of touch. The legislation I have introduced today pursues one potential solution: VA partnerships with community based organizations. If enacted, this bill would require VA to work with community based organizations to reach out to veterans who are underserved. Five community organizations, chosen by VA, would be selected for pilot partnerships. Special consideration would be given to rural communities and areas with a high proportion of minorities and other underserved veterans. The five pilots, each in partnership with a VA medical center, would focus on providing support to their underserved group by helping servicemembers transition from military service to veteran status, and helping them navigate the complicated veterans' health care and benefits system. Also, the pilot programs would reach out to the families of veterans, in recognition of the central role that families play in helping veterans readjust and reintegrate. As Mental Health America, the country's oldest and largest mental health nonprofit, has pointed out, America's newest generation of veterans is returning from combat with invisible wounds that require care. These and other complicated injuries place new challenges on VA to provide the quality health care and benefits veterans have earned through their service. I hope that through the partnerships outlined in this legislation, VA will be better able to provide services to veterans who deserve support, yet are underserved.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will help the Department of Veterans Affairs reach out to underserved veterans, through collaboration with community organizations. The Department of Veterans Affairs is the second largest cabinet level Federal department, operating the Nation's largest health care system. VA provides benefits and health care to millions of veterans and their families every year. Without question, VA helps countless veterans through its various programs every day, largely thanks to its employees, who make it their mission to serve those who served their country honorably. Unfortunately, while VA makes a positive impact on the veterans it serves, many others are left underserved. Far too often, these are veterans already in difficult circumstances, those who could benefit most from VA support. For example, veterans from rural areas must do without the kind of local support systems urban and suburban veterans often enjoy. Many veterans from racial and ethnic minority groups also remain underserved by VA, regardless of their physical proximity to veterans' programs. More must be done for these veterans, who look at VA and see a system either out of reach or out of touch. The legislation I have introduced today pursues one potential solution: VA partnerships with community based organizations. If enacted, this bill would require VA to work with community based organizations to reach out to veterans who are underserved. Five community organizations, chosen by VA, would be selected for pilot partnerships. Special consideration would be given to rural communities and areas with a high proportion of minorities and other underserved veterans. The five pilots, each in partnership with a VA medical center, would focus on providing support to their underserved group by helping servicemembers transition from military service to veteran status, and helping them navigate the complicated veterans' health care and benefits system. Also, the pilot programs would reach out to the families of veterans, in recognition of the central role that families play in helping veterans readjust and reintegrate. As Mental Health America, the country's oldest and largest mental health nonprofit, has pointed out, America's newest generation of veterans is returning from combat with invisible wounds that require care. These and other complicated injuries place new challenges on VA to provide the quality health care and benefits veterans have earned through their service. I hope that through the partnerships outlined in this legislation, VA will be better able to provide services to veterans who deserve support, yet are underserved.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it pleases me to once again sponsor a resolution designating April as Financial Literacy Month. I thank the cosponsors of this resolution, Senators Enzi, Dodd, Stabenow, Levin, Schumer, Inouye, Menendez, Crapo, Johnson, Cardin, Lincoln, Cochran, Martinez, Murray, Allard, Durbin, Baucus, and Feinstein. Without a sufficient understanding of economics and personal finance, individuals will not be able to appropriately manage their finances, evaluate credit opportunities, and successfully invest for long-term financial goals in an increasingly complex marketplace. It is essential that we work toward improving education and consumer protection, and empowering individuals through economic and financial literacy in order to build stronger families, businesses, and communities. Now more than ever, it is imperative that education in economics, credit, and personal finance takes center stage. During the past year, we have seen the unscrupulous nature of predatory lenders as they enticed millions of families into complicated loans they could not afford nor understand, and we are now witnessing the results of a faltering housing market that has begun to impact other sectors of the U.S. economy. Rapidly increasing access to credit for Americans was not matched by efforts to ensure they could make sense of the complex agreements they were entering into. As recent statistics released by the Federal Reserve and the Department of Commerce have shown, consumer debt in America continues to rise. Last year, the total amount of consumer debt topped $2.5 trillion, of which credit card balances comprise a major portion. Hard- working Americans now spend a record 14 percent of their income just to pay the interest on their accumulated consumer debt. Personal savings rates have been negative for 2 out of the last 3 years, a situation not seen in this country since the Great Depression. In a time of rising costs of energy, higher education, and health care, it is even more challenging for working families to navigate their difficult financial situations. Furthermore, a study conducted last year by the National Council on Economic Education found that, compared with 2004, even fewer States now require testing knowledge of economics as a requirement for high school graduation. We need to do more to invest in financial literacy now for our young men and women in order to ensure a knowledgeable, prosperous generation of future American leaders who will be able to make decisions that will benefit both their families and our nation. I thank those organizations and individuals who do their part to ensure the education of personal finance reaches as many Americans as possible, and I applaud their efforts in these times of economic distress. Taking the month of April to focus our attention on financial literacy will allow us to make steady progress in helping to make Americans more competent with their limited financial resources. I urge my colleagues to join with me in the swift passage of this resolution, and together we can work toward a future where all Americans enjoy the benefits of a financially literate society.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that would rectify an oversight made in the recent passage of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. If enacted, this bill will allow thousands of veterans to realize the American dream of owning a home. Senators Reid, Durbin, Burr, Rockefeller, Murray, Obama, Sanders, Brown, Baucus, Clinton, Kerry, and Boxer join me in offering this legislation. The VA Home Loan Guaranty was part of the original GI Bill in 1944. It was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and provided veterans with a federally guaranteed home loan with no down payment. So, as World War II was ending, landmark legislation made the dream of home ownership a reality for millions of returning veterans. They were able to build new homes and otherwise begin new lives following their service and with the assistance of the Federal Government. Today, more than 25 million veterans and servicemembers are eligible for VA home loan guarantees. Eligibility extends to veterans who served on active duty for a minimum of 90 days during wartime or a minimum of 181 continuous days during peacetime, and have a discharge other than dishonorable. Members of the Guard and Reserve who have never been called to active duty must serve a total of 6 years in order to be eligible. Certain surviving spouses are also eligible for the housing guarantee. The amount of the home loan guaranty was last adjusted by the Veterans Benefits Act of 2004. The maximum guaranty amount was increased 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. Using that formula, since the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit for a single family residence in 2008 is $417,000, VA will guaranty a veteran's loan up to $104,250, or 25 percent of the Freddie Mac limit. This guaranty exempts homeowners from having to make a down payment or secure private mortgage insurance. The newly-enacted Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, however, temporarily reset the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA home loan guarantee limits to 125 percent of metropolitan-area median home prices, without reference to the VA home loan program. This had the effect of raising the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac limits to nearly $730,000, in the highest cost areas, while leaving the VA limit of $417,000 in place. The measure I am introducing today would correct the oversight in the Economic Stimulus Act and extend the temporary increase to veterans as well. Unlike the economic stimulus legislation, my legislation would extend the temporary increase to December 31, 2011, rather than just through 2008. This would enable more veterans to utilize their VA benefit to purchase a home. In fact, VA expects that there would be an increase of approximately 4,313 loans as a result of increasing the VA loan limit through December 2011. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that this important group of Americans might reap the benefits of an increased home loan guaranty in this time of economic uncertainty. 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 a bill that would rectify an oversight made in the recent passage of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. If enacted, this bill will allow thousands of veterans to realize the American dream of owning a home. Senators Reid, Durbin, Burr, Rockefeller, Murray, Obama, Sanders, Brown, Baucus, Clinton, Kerry, and Boxer join me in offering this legislation. The VA Home Loan Guaranty was part of the original GI Bill in 1944. It was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and provided veterans with a federally guaranteed home loan with no down payment. So, as World War II was ending, landmark legislation made the dream of home ownership a reality for millions of returning veterans. They were able to build new homes and otherwise begin new lives following their service and with the assistance of the Federal Government. Today, more than 25 million veterans and servicemembers are eligible for VA home loan guarantees. Eligibility extends to veterans who served on active duty for a minimum of 90 days during wartime or a minimum of 181 continuous days during peacetime, and have a discharge other than dishonorable. Members of the Guard and Reserve who have never been called to active duty must serve a total of 6 years in order to be eligible. Certain surviving spouses are also eligible for the housing guarantee. The amount of the home loan guaranty was last adjusted by the Veterans Benefits Act of 2004. The maximum guaranty amount was increased 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. Using that formula, since the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit for a single family residence in 2008 is $417,000, VA will guaranty a veteran's loan up to $104,250, or 25 percent of the Freddie Mac limit. This guaranty exempts homeowners from having to make a down payment or secure private mortgage insurance. The newly-enacted Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, however, temporarily reset the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA home loan guarantee limits to 125 percent of metropolitan-area median home prices, without reference to the VA home loan program. This had the effect of raising the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac limits to nearly $730,000, in the highest cost areas, while leaving the VA limit of $417,000 in place. The measure I am introducing today would correct the oversight in the Economic Stimulus Act and extend the temporary increase to veterans as well. Unlike the economic stimulus legislation, my legislation would extend the temporary increase to December 31, 2011, rather than just through 2008. This would enable more veterans to utilize their VA benefit to purchase a home. In fact, VA expects that there would be an increase of approximately 4,313 loans as a result of increasing the VA loan limit through December 2011. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that this important group of Americans might reap the benefits of an increased home loan guaranty in this time of economic uncertainty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I am pleased to discuss funding for VA in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2009. Chairman Conrad and his colleagues on the Budget Committee have done impressive work on this resolution. They have demonstrated sound judgment in their funding recommendation to address the needs of our country. Service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, like those who returned from Vietnam, Korea, World War II and all previous wars, bear the effects of their service. They show us that the costs of war do not end on the battlefield. In crafting this budget, we are in a position to ensure that care for returning service members, of every war, is a top priority. The Department of Veterans Affairs provides superior health care to millions of veterans every year. It is widely regarded as one of the top health care systems in America. Today, VA faces a growing wave of new demands--veterans of past wars are aging and making greater use of the system, and younger veterans of the current conflicts require a new range of services from VA. Congress must provide the resources for VA to meet all of these demands. This budget resolution acknowledges the challenges facing VA. It meets our responsibility of caring for our Nation's service members and veterans. In recent years, VA and Congress have made a tremendous investment in mental health services. I am pleased that this budget reflects an ongoing commitment to better serve the needs of veterans with mental health concerns. Madam President, I remind my colleagues that battle wounds frequently manifest themselves as invisible wounds. These wounds can be just as devastating as physical wounds. Indeed, many mental health disorders, including substance use disorder and PTSD, have both physical and mental manifestations. They impact the veteran's relationships and his or her ability to work and to interact in society. The effects of many mental health disorders can be limited or even avoided if they are caught and treated promptly, before long-term disabilities develop. This budget resolution provides the funds to continue the essential task of providing timely access to mental health care for all veterans. Families play a critical role in the well-being of veterans. As chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I held a hearing yesterday on the role of families in veterans' lives, and on the support VA and DoD provides them. Families are often the primary caregivers for injured veterans, and provide essential assistance in recovery and rehabilitation through reintegration into civilian life. The degree of support provided by family members is directly related to a veteran's ability to deal effectively with readjustment and mental health concerns. Providing support to veterans' families is in VA's vital interest. One of the harshest realities of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the number of soldiers who have sustained complex and multiple injuries in combat. Significant improvements in battlefield medicine have enabled many seriously wounded servicemembers to survive their injuries. These men and women are coming home with extraordinarily complex health care needs. VA and Congress have focused on addressing the needs of these veterans. There have been improvements in screening and care for service members with traumatic brain injury, but much remains to be done. In addition, Congress directed VA to establish specialized centers for rehabilitative care in response to the challenging medical and rehabilitative needs of veterans with multiple and complex injuries. VA's four lead polytrauma rehabilitation centers are essential to meeting the needs of the most severely injured veterans and their families. As we work to meet the needs of all returning servicemembers, we must pay close attention to the full range of war wounds--from eye trauma and damage to servicemembers' hearing, to PTSD and depression, to burn injuries. Another important tool which VA is still developing is comprehensive health screening for returning servicemembers. This is absolutely essential. Without effective screening for mental health disorders, traumatic brain injury, hearing and vision loss and other injuries or disorders, VA will miss opportunities to help veterans in need of services. Further, I believe comprehensive health screening before deployment is essential to help with the evaluation and understanding of the effects of combat on servicemembers. As chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have worked to ensure that all veterans receive appropriate health screenings. I will continue to advocate for these screenings. On the benefits side of the ledger, in the last year, Congress has provided a significant amount of funding to VA for much-needed staffing to adjudicate claims. Our Nation's veterans deserve nothing less than having their claims rated accurately and in a reasonable period of time. Now, the American people, especially veterans, will expect to see a decreasing backlog and increased timeliness and quality. I pledge my continuing support to get veterans the benefits they need in an appropriate amount of time. Congress must now assure that VA has sufficient funding for technology and training initiatives to aid in its endeavor to reduce the backlog of claims. This budget resolution is certainly a step in the right direction. The entitlement funding provided to veterans in this budget resolution reflects the Nation's continuing responsibility to care for he who has borne the battle, long after the last shots of war have been fired. Indeed, I view funding for veterans' entitlements as a continuing cost of war. The administration's VA budget request proposed severe cuts to many essential programs and accounts. Research, the inspector general, the National Cemetery Administration, and grants for State home construction would all be unnecessarily cut. I am particularly troubled by the proposed cuts of nearly 50 percent to the VA construction accounts. Over the past year, internal reviews identified widespread maintenance concerns, in addition to already planned construction projects. I find it unconscionable that in the face of the pressing demands across the country, the President would suggest such cuts. The budget proposal advanced by Chairman Conrad and his colleagues rectifies these mistakes in the President's request, and I appreciate their foresight on these issues. I am pleased with the investment in veterans programs that is made in this budget resolution. I again commend Chairman Conrad and the Budget Committee for their thoughtful and responsible work. Care for our Nation's veterans is truly a cost of war, and it is our responsibility to meet their needs. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of the resolution before us. I thank you, Madam President.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the proposed Veterans' Rating Schedule Review Act. This legislation would remove a barrier to legal redress faced by veterans who believe that a provision of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities--the Rating Schedule--does not comply with a law passed by Congress. The amount of compensation veterans with service-connected conditions receive is based on a disability rating, which VA assigns to these conditions. VA uses its rating schedule to determine which rating to assign to a veteran's particular condition. Under current law, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has jurisdiction to consider only Constitutional challenges to the rating schedule. When legislation was passed providing for judicial review, review of the rating schedule was specifically prohibited as part of a final compromise. This legislation would expand the jurisdiction of the court to include cases where a provision of the rating schedule or the absence of a rating for a condition mandated by statute is challenged. Under the proposed change, aspects of the VA rating schedule that appear to violate requirements of law set forth in chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, would be subject to the court's jurisdiction. 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 a forum in which the rating schedule can be challenged when someone believes that a statute passed by Congress to provide compensation for the service-disabled is being violated. Veterans seeking to challenge the denial of benefits based on the rating schedule's lack of consistency with other laws are subject to rejection by the court due to the prohibition in current law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held, in Wanner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1124, 2004, that the language in current law ``removes from the Veterans Court's jurisdiction all review involving the content of the rating schedules and the Secretary's actions in adopting or revising them.'' One example of the kind of case that would be affected by the change to the law is VA's lack of action in response to legislation enacted in 2002 which allows veterans who qualify for compensation due to the loss of hearing in both ears to receive special ``paired organ'' benefits. In the years since that law was passed, many veterans serving in Iraq have suffered hearing loss after being exposed to Improvised Explosive Device blasts. However, VA has yet to issue regulations to amend the rating schedule, as required by the law. Under the current state of the law, no one could bring a legal challenge to that failure to act. I note that the exception to the ban on review of the rating schedule proposed in this bill is a limited one. The bill would not allow for a wholesale assault on the rating schedule. It would merely provide judicial review of cases where compliance with a law passed by Congress is challenged. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that veterans seeking justice may have an appropriate forum to challenge the VA's compliance with governing statutes. 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' Rating Schedule Review Act. This legislation would remove a barrier to legal redress faced by veterans who believe that a provision of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities--the Rating Schedule--does not comply with a law passed by Congress. The amount of compensation veterans with service-connected conditions receive is based on a disability rating, which VA assigns to these conditions. VA uses its rating schedule to determine which rating to assign to a veteran's particular condition. Under current law, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has jurisdiction to consider only Constitutional challenges to the rating schedule. When legislation was passed providing for judicial review, review of the rating schedule was specifically prohibited as part of a final compromise. This legislation would expand the jurisdiction of the court to include cases where a provision of the rating schedule or the absence of a rating for a condition mandated by statute is challenged. Under the proposed change, aspects of the VA rating schedule that appear to violate requirements of law set forth in chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, would be subject to the court's jurisdiction. 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 a forum in which the rating schedule can be challenged when someone believes that a statute passed by Congress to provide compensation for the service-disabled is being violated. Veterans seeking to challenge the denial of benefits based on the rating schedule's lack of consistency with other laws are subject to rejection by the court due to the prohibition in current law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held, in Wanner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1124, 2004, that the language in current law ``removes from the Veterans Court's jurisdiction all review involving the content of the rating schedules and the Secretary's actions in adopting or revising them.'' One example of the kind of case that would be affected by the change to the law is VA's lack of action in response to legislation enacted in 2002 which allows veterans who qualify for compensation due to the loss of hearing in both ears to receive special ``paired organ'' benefits. In the years since that law was passed, many veterans serving in Iraq have suffered hearing loss after being exposed to Improvised Explosive Device blasts. However, VA has yet to issue regulations to amend the rating schedule, as required by the law. Under the current state of the law, no one could bring a legal challenge to that failure to act. I note that the exception to the ban on review of the rating schedule proposed in this bill is a limited one. The bill would not allow for a wholesale assault on the rating schedule. It would merely provide judicial review of cases where compliance with a law passed by Congress is challenged. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that veterans seeking justice may have an appropriate forum to challenge the VA's compliance with governing statutes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Four minutes.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to commend Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad for his fine work on this budget resolution. It will lower our taxes and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Americans. In addition, I am very pleased this budget resolution honors our Nation's veterans by providing the necessary funds for our wounded warriors. Funding for our veterans is very important, and I wish to speak about this again at a later time. The resolution passed by the Budget Committee last Thursday will balance our Federal budget by 2012 and fund programs that are critical to the health and safety of Americans. It provides tax relief to middle-income Americans, honors our fighting men and women in the Armed Forces, shows respect for our wounded and disabled veterans, and ensures the continued safety and security of our Nation. By focusing on the real needs of Americans and reviving our slowing economy, the budget resolution seeks to restore balance--balance to our finances and balance to our priorities for America. The budget resolution increases funding for veterans health care and children's health care. It provides a substantial increase above the President's budget for education and Head Start. It promotes greater efficiency and renewable energy programs. It extends middle-class tax cuts, such as marriage penalty relief and the child tax credit, and it brings more middle-class Americans into a 10-percent tax bracket. The budget resolution also invests in building and repairing roads, bridges, harbors, airports, and schools because we recognize our economic success depends on public infrastructure investment. As Chairman Conrad has noted, this budget is only a first step, but it is an important step to reach our goal of long-term fiscal security. I am prepared to join Chairman Conrad in this important mission to balance our budget, restore our military readiness, honor our commitment to troops and veterans, and enhance our national security. I urge my colleagues to do the same. It is time that we provide a real future for our children and our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing today the proposed GI Bill Miscellaneous Improvements Act of 2008. This measure would make three minor but important changes in existing law relating to veterans' educational assistance programs. In 2001, Public Law 107-103 established a program of accelerated payments for individuals enrolled in high-cost programs of educational assistance leading to employment in high technology industry. It is generally agreed that the intent of that legislation was that payments were to be effective with respect to short, non-degree programs of education. For example, Senate Report 107-86 stated: Microsoft, Cisco, and other technical training for certification is offered through training centers, private contractors to community colleges, or by the companies themselves. These courses often last just a few weeks or months, and can cost many thousands of dollars . . . During the Committee's June 28th hearing, Dr. Leo Mackay, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, testified that ``providing educational benefits for pursuit of these [technology] courses is fully consonant with MGIB purposes.'' David Tucker, Senior Associate Legislative Director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, also testified that, ``If the MGIB is to be used not only for recruitment purposes, but also as a means of enabling a veteran to make a smooth transition back to civilian life, then S. 1088 [allowing veterans to use their MGIB benefits in courses leading to certification in technical fields] is a vital means to accomplish these goals.'' As enacted, however, the payments are made to individuals pursuing any courses in the high technology sector including associate and degree programs. The legislation I am introducing would correct this oversight prospectively, while holding harmless those individuals who might be receiving accelerated payments for degree programs at this time. Public Law 107-103 also expanded the scope of work that could be assigned to individuals participating in VA work study programs. Specifically, it added to acceptable activities certain outreach services programs, activities relating to hospital and domiciliary care to veterans in State homes, and activities relating to the administration of national or state veterans' cemeteries. As enacted, this expansion of scope was initially made available until December 31, 2006. Public Law 109-461 extended the scope expansion until June 30, 2007. Since legislation extending the scope expansion was stalled in Congress, there was a disruption in the provision of these important activities until Public Law 110-157, enacted on December 26, 2007, extended this expansion until June 30, 2010. My proposal would make this activity expansion permanent so that the unfortunate disruption that occurred this year will not occur in the future. I note that this provision does not affect the number of VA work study positions that may be made available. It only addresses the type of activities that may be carried out under the program. Finally, this bill would authorize appropriations for VA payments to State Approving Agencies. Under provisions of chapter 36 of title 38, U.S. Code, VA contracts for the services of State approving agencies-- SAAs--for the purpose of approving programs of education at institutions of higher learning, apprenticeship programs, on-job training programs, and other programs. SAAs are also tasked with assisting VA with various outreach activities to inform eligible VA program participants of the educational assistance benefits to which they are entitled. Since 1988, VA payment for the services of SAAs has been made only out of funds available for readjustment benefits, a mandatory funding account, and has thus been subject to funding caps. Section 3674(a)(4) of title 38, U.S. Code, states as follows: ``The total amount made available under this section for any fiscal year may not exceed $13,000,000 or, for fiscal year 2007, $19,000,000.'' Thus, under existing law, the cap on the amount of funds that could be made available in fiscal years 2008 and beyond would revert to funding levels applied prior to fiscal year 2000--or a reduction of more than 32 percent. A provision in S. 1315 that would restore the $19 million cap on funding is currently pending in the Senate, and a $19 million funding level was provided for through the appropriations process. However, the measure I am introducing would look beyond this fiscal year and address the needs of the program in the future. By authorizing appropriations for the SAAs, I believe that the program will be able to justify increases in the current funding level beyond the $19 million level to which they would be restricted for all fiscal years going forward. Further, I believe that the current cap on funding, although to some appearing attractive because it seems to offer some stability by pulling from the mandatory funding readjustment benefits account, actually offers no such stability as VA could at any time determine that $2 million ``does not exceed'' $19 million. I am committed to seeking an adequate level of funding for the important activities of the SAAs and believe that this approach would assist in achieving that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing today the proposed GI Bill Miscellaneous Improvements Act of 2008. This measure would make three minor but important changes in existing law relating to veterans' educational assistance programs. In 2001, Public Law 107-103 established a program of accelerated payments for individuals enrolled in high-cost programs of educational assistance leading to employment in high technology industry. It is generally agreed that the intent of that legislation was that payments were to be effective with respect to short, non-degree programs of education. For example, Senate Report 107-86 stated: Microsoft, Cisco, and other technical training for certification is offered through training centers, private contractors to community colleges, or by the companies themselves. These courses often last just a few weeks or months, and can cost many thousands of dollars . . . During the Committee's June 28th hearing, Dr. Leo Mackay, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, testified that ``providing educational benefits for pursuit of these [technology] courses is fully consonant with MGIB purposes.'' David Tucker, Senior Associate Legislative Director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, also testified that, ``If the MGIB is to be used not only for recruitment purposes, but also as a means of enabling a veteran to make a smooth transition back to civilian life, then S. 1088 [allowing veterans to use their MGIB benefits in courses leading to certification in technical fields] is a vital means to accomplish these goals.'' As enacted, however, the payments are made to individuals pursuing any courses in the high technology sector including associate and degree programs. The legislation I am introducing would correct this oversight prospectively, while holding harmless those individuals who might be receiving accelerated payments for degree programs at this time. Public Law 107-103 also expanded the scope of work that could be assigned to individuals participating in VA work study programs. Specifically, it added to acceptable activities certain outreach services programs, activities relating to hospital and domiciliary care to veterans in State homes, and activities relating to the administration of national or state veterans' cemeteries. As enacted, this expansion of scope was initially made available until December 31, 2006. Public Law 109-461 extended the scope expansion until June 30, 2007. Since legislation extending the scope expansion was stalled in Congress, there was a disruption in the provision of these important activities until Public Law 110-157, enacted on December 26, 2007, extended this expansion until June 30, 2010. My proposal would make this activity expansion permanent so that the unfortunate disruption that occurred this year will not occur in the future. I note that this provision does not affect the number of VA work study positions that may be made available. It only addresses the type of activities that may be carried out under the program. Finally, this bill would authorize appropriations for VA payments to State Approving Agencies. Under provisions of chapter 36 of title 38, U.S. Code, VA contracts for the services of State approving agencies-- SAAs--for the purpose of approving programs of education at institutions of higher learning, apprenticeship programs, on-job training programs, and other programs. SAAs are also tasked with assisting VA with various outreach activities to inform eligible VA program participants of the educational assistance benefits to which they are entitled. Since 1988, VA payment for the services of SAAs has been made only out of funds available for readjustment benefits, a mandatory funding account, and has thus been subject to funding caps. Section 3674(a)(4) of title 38, U.S. Code, states as follows: ``The total amount made available under this section for any fiscal year may not exceed $13,000,000 or, for fiscal year 2007, $19,000,000.'' Thus, under existing law, the cap on the amount of funds that could be made available in fiscal years 2008 and beyond would revert to funding levels applied prior to fiscal year 2000--or a reduction of more than 32 percent. A provision in S. 1315 that would restore the $19 million cap on funding is currently pending in the Senate, and a $19 million funding level was provided for through the appropriations process. However, the measure I am introducing would look beyond this fiscal year and address the needs of the program in the future. By authorizing appropriations for the SAAs, I believe that the program will be able to justify increases in the current funding level beyond the $19 million level to which they would be restricted for all fiscal years going forward. Further, I believe that the current cap on funding, although to some appearing attractive because it seems to offer some stability by pulling from the mandatory funding readjustment benefits account, actually offers no such stability as VA could at any time determine that $2 million ``does not exceed'' $19 million. I am committed to seeking an adequate level of funding for the important activities of the SAAs and believe that this approach would assist in achieving that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak--again-- about S. 1315, the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This critical legislation would affect real change in the treatment of our Nation's veterans. Provisions in S. 1315 would improve life insurance programs for disabled veterans, expand the traumatic injury protection program for active duty servicemembers, and provide individuals with severe burns specially adapted housing benefits. These provisions are vital to improve benefits and services for our veterans. However, for many months now, S. 1315 has been blocked from debate by Republican Members opposed to a provision in the bill that would extend certain VA benefits to Filipino veterans, residing in the Philippines, who fought alongside U.S. troops during World War II. These veterans have been denied these benefits for over 50 years. I believe it is time to give these elderly veterans the benefits that they earned and so richly deserve. In the 62 years since the end of the Second World War, Filipino veterans have worked tirelessly to secure the veterans status they were promised when they agreed to fight under U.S. command during World War II. They were considered U.S. veterans until that status was taken from them by an Act of Congress in 1946. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will ask that a letter to Senator Craig from General Delfin Lorenzana, the head of the Office of Veterans' Affairs for the Embassy of the Philippines, be printed in the Record. This letter presents a historical overview of Filipino involvement during World War II and what has ensued since that time. General Lorenzana notes that these veterans fought in a war between the United States and Japan, under the U.S. flag as part of the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East. He notes that out of the nearly half-a- million Filipino veterans who served, only 18,000 survive today. In another decade, only a few of them will remain. I am happy to note that many Filipino veterans enjoy eligibility for benefits and health care services on the same basis as other U.S. veterans. However, there is still work to be done in order to extend these eligibilities to all of those who served with the United States military during World War II. Last June the committee held a markup where the then ranking member, Senator Craig, offered an amendment to reduce the amount of pension that Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines would receive under S. 1315. I stress that the amendment was not to strip pension benefits from the bill entirely--merely to reduce the benefit in line with what Senator Craig viewed as appropriate. I disagreed with Senator Craig's assessment and his amendment was not adopted. In the months that followed markup, consideration of S. 1315 was put off while Republican leadership on the committee suddenly changed hands. In late fall, my efforts to seek a middle ground between the level of pension benefits in the bill as reported, and the level former Ranking Member Craig sought during markup, were rejected. When a counteroffer was finally made by the committee's new ranking member, Senator Burr, supported by Senator Craig, it proposed to entirely strip pension benefits from Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines from the bill. This is not acceptable to me. It is possible, however, that it might be acceptable to some in the Senate. That is why I continue to ask that we move forward with deliberation of this measure. Let us have a real debate on this bill, and then have an up-or-down vote. I again ask that the Senate be allowed to debate this important measure. Our committee must be permitted to finish our work. America's veterans deserve no less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from General Lorenzana, which I mentioned earlier, be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is a privilege for me to honor Mrs. Esther G. Kee who is retiring as president of the United States- Asia Institute which she cofounded with the late Joji Konoshima in 1979, with the encouragement and support of then-President Jimmy Carter. The objectives of the United States-Asia Institute are to promote better understanding between the United States and Asia, to conduct work and educational visits to Asia for Members of Congress and their staff, to maintain close ties with Asian diplomatic missions, to organize international and conferences and symposiums in the U.S. and Asia on political, economic, and security topics, and to host small, off-the-record meetings of American and Asian officials, businessmen and academic leaders providing a venue for free and open discussions and exchange of views. Under Mrs. Kee's stewardship, the institute has successfully met its objectives, and I am confident that it will continue to do so under the tutelage of her successor. One of Mrs. Kee's most successful initiatives has been staff codels which she has organized and led. As an example, there were 70 staff codels with 800 senior congressional staff that traveled to China to meet and discuss issues with high government officials. This has facilitated mutual understanding, a core objective, and people-to-people diplomacy the benefits of which will continue to inure to our mutual benefit. As Mrs. Kee retires from active leadership of the United States-Asia Institute, I have every confidence that she will continue to be active in the institute and United States-Asia relations as a valued adviser. On a personal level, I look forward to her continued counsel and advice. Mahalo nui loa--thank you very much--Esther G. Kee, for all that you have done on behalf of our country in its continuing and important mission of promoting better understanding between the United States and Asia.