Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977: Policy Issues Thirty Years Later.''

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, at 11 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Legislative Hearing on America's Climate Security Act of 2007, S. 2191.''

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing. At this hearing, the Committee will examine the accuracy of the Federal Trade Commission's tar and nicotine cigarette rating system and the marketing claims of cigarette companies based on these ratings.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``SBA Lender Oversight: Preventing Loan Fraud and Improving Regulation of Lenders,'' on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 13, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct an open hearing on Congressional oversight.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Exploring the Scope of Public Performance Rights'' on Tuesday, November 13, 2007. The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Witness list: Lyle Lovett, Singer/Songwriter, Nashville, TN; Alice Peacock, Singer/ Songwriter, Chicago, IL; Steven W. Newberry, President and CEO, Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation, Glasgow, KY; and Dan DeVany, Vice President and General Manager, WETA, Arlington, VA.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Human Capital Needs of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection `One Face at the Border' Initiative.''

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to support the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 2008 Department of Defense appropriations bill. I would also like to thank all of the House and Senate conferees for their hard work and dedication to ensure that our troops and their families have all the necessary equipment and support they need. As both a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am particularly pleased to support $70 million in funding for programs authorized under the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, designed to assist members of our Armed Forces and their families in the often difficult transition from battlefield to home. I am also glad to support the inclusion of $980 million in additional funds to ensure that National Guard and Reserve forces have the equipment they need to train for deployments abroad and to respond to natural disasters at home. In addition, I applaud the conferees' decision to retain a provision recognizing the dedication and sacrifices made by members of our Armed Forces and their civilian counterparts, by providing a 3.5-percent increase in basic pay for all service members and civilian personnel, 0.5 percent above the President's request. Similarly, I am pleased to support the inclusion of $2.6 billion to be used for the immediate needs of our military families. These funds which will be used to hire counselors, teachers, and child care providers are critical for our military readiness and for sustaining our troops by ensuring the well- being of their families. Once again, let me urge my colleagues to set aside differences and reach the compromises necessary to provide our brave men and women in the armed services with the resources they need.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Smith, in honoring our Nation's veterans through passage of S. Res. 365. We are days away from honoring veterans for their sacrifices with a national day of recognition on November 11. Our resolution would urge the President to order a proclamation calling upon employers to make special efforts to recruit and hire veterans this Veterans Day. As chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am well acquainted with the employment issues facing veterans, members of the Guard and Reserves, and their families as they seek to move from the military to the civilian workforce. Making these transitions is never easy, but for younger veterans it can be particularly difficult. For members of the National Guard and Reserves, the return to a job they previously held may be challenging for a variety of reasons. For family members, the uncertainty of multiple and extended deployments poses different obstacles. Finally, the obstacles facing those who are disabled during their service can sometimes seem overwhelming. The needs of these individuals deserve our utmost attention and resources. Despite these problems and challenges, veterans make good employees. They know how to work, and they bring with them a wealth of expertise and experience. I believe the employment data supports my belief since rates of unemployment for veterans generally are lower than their non- veteran counterparts. However, the rate of unemployment for younger veterans and those recently separated from active duty tends to be higher than their non-veteran peers. This resolution would highlight the actions that employers can take to honor the sacrifices of our Nation's veterans and allow them to use the skills learned while in service to their country. Veterans have made sacrifices serving our Nation. When they come back from that service, it is our responsibility as legislators to aid them in returning to the civilian world. Having a job can be one of the greatest steps a returning servicemember can make in successfully reintegrating into civilian society. I am honored to stand with my colleague in honoring the veterans of the Nation, and I urge my colleagues to join us. It would be my hope that employers around the country take up this proclamation as a best practice and continue to look at veterans as their first choice when making hiring decisions.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the proposed Compensation for Combat Veterans Act. This legislation would remove a barrier to the fair adjudication of claims for VA benefits filed by veterans who have disabilities incurred or aggravated by their military service in combat areas. Under existing law, veterans who can establish that they served in combat do not have to produce official military records to support their claim for disabilities related to that service. At present, some veterans, disabled by their service in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as those who served earlier in Korea and Vietnam, are unable to benefit from this liberalizing evidentiary requirement because they have difficulty proving personal participation in combat by official military documents. Under an opinion of the Department of Veterans Affairs General Counsel, VA GC Opinion 12-99, veterans must establish by official military records or decorations that they ``personally participated in events constituting an actual fight or encounter with a military foe or hostile unit or instrumentality.'' Oversight visits by Committee staff to VA regional offices have found claims denied as a result of this policy because those who served in combat zones were not able to produce official military documentation of their personal participation in an actual fight. Some of these cases include a Marine Combat Engineer serving in Iraq who encountered IEDs, an Army veteran accidently shot in Iraq by a fellow servicemember, and an Army Infantryman whose records showed participation in the Tet offensive of 1968, but not ``personal participation in an actual fight.'' In other cases, extensive delays in claims processing occur while VA adjudicators attempt to obtain official military documents showing that a Marine who served in Bagdad or Fallujah was personally exposed to IEDs. The legislation I am introducing would overturn the General Counsel precedent opinion. I believe that the requirement in that opinion is inconsistent with the original intent of Congress in liberalizing the requirements for proof of service-connection in cases involving veterans who served in combat areas. As the Senate noted in 1941, in the report on the original bill providing special consideration for combat veterans: The absence of an official record of care or treatment in many of such cases is readily explained by the conditions surrounding the service of combat veterans. It was emphasized in the hearings that the establishment of records of care or treatment of veterans in other than combat areas, and particularly in the States, was a comparatively simple matter as compared with the veteran who served in combat. Either the veteran attempted to carry on despite his disability to avoid having a record made lest he might be separated from his organization or, as in many cases, the records themselves were lost. S. Rep. 77-902 to H.R. 4905 at 2. While some improvements have been made since 1941 in obtaining and maintaining records in combat areas, record keeping and transmittal of records in combat areas remains problematic. This bill would require that, in cases in which the veteran can demonstrate service in a recognized combat area and alleges disabilities related to that service the relaxed evidentiary principles intended by the Congress would apply, with no requirement for further evidence from the veteran regarding his or her specific activity. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that combat veterans of the current conflicts, as well as those who served in earlier conflicts, can receive the benefits they deserve in a timely manner.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the proposed Compensation for Combat Veterans Act. This legislation would remove a barrier to the fair adjudication of claims for VA benefits filed by veterans who have disabilities incurred or aggravated by their military service in combat areas. Under existing law, veterans who can establish that they served in combat do not have to produce official military records to support their claim for disabilities related to that service. At present, some veterans, disabled by their service in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as those who served earlier in Korea and Vietnam, are unable to benefit from this liberalizing evidentiary requirement because they have difficulty proving personal participation in combat by official military documents. Under an opinion of the Department of Veterans Affairs General Counsel, VA GC Opinion 12-99, veterans must establish by official military records or decorations that they ``personally participated in events constituting an actual fight or encounter with a military foe or hostile unit or instrumentality.'' Oversight visits by Committee staff to VA regional offices have found claims denied as a result of this policy because those who served in combat zones were not able to produce official military documentation of their personal participation in an actual fight. Some of these cases include a Marine Combat Engineer serving in Iraq who encountered IEDs, an Army veteran accidently shot in Iraq by a fellow servicemember, and an Army Infantryman whose records showed participation in the Tet offensive of 1968, but not ``personal participation in an actual fight.'' In other cases, extensive delays in claims processing occur while VA adjudicators attempt to obtain official military documents showing that a Marine who served in Bagdad or Fallujah was personally exposed to IEDs. The legislation I am introducing would overturn the General Counsel precedent opinion. I believe that the requirement in that opinion is inconsistent with the original intent of Congress in liberalizing the requirements for proof of service-connection in cases involving veterans who served in combat areas. As the Senate noted in 1941, in the report on the original bill providing special consideration for combat veterans: The absence of an official record of care or treatment in many of such cases is readily explained by the conditions surrounding the service of combat veterans. It was emphasized in the hearings that the establishment of records of care or treatment of veterans in other than combat areas, and particularly in the States, was a comparatively simple matter as compared with the veteran who served in combat. Either the veteran attempted to carry on despite his disability to avoid having a record made lest he might be separated from his organization or, as in many cases, the records themselves were lost. S. Rep. 77-902 to H.R. 4905 at 2. While some improvements have been made since 1941 in obtaining and maintaining records in combat areas, record keeping and transmittal of records in combat areas remains problematic. This bill would require that, in cases in which the veteran can demonstrate service in a recognized combat area and alleges disabilities related to that service the relaxed evidentiary principles intended by the Congress would apply, with no requirement for further evidence from the veteran regarding his or her specific activity. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that combat veterans of the current conflicts, as well as those who served in earlier conflicts, can receive the benefits they deserve in a timely manner.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to write government documents in plain language. This past Sunday, November 4, 2007, the Washington Post ran an article entitled ``Parsing the Fine Print in Federal Ads.'' This article illustrates exactly why the Federal Government must begin writing in language that the American people can understand. The Federal Government has a pressing need to recruit skilled employees. Many agencies are understaffed, and more than 50 percent of the Federal workforce will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years. Yet advertisements for Federal jobs are described as ``incomprehensible,'' ``opaque,'' ``dense,'' and ``convoluted.'' The article quotes two different people who have written entire books about applying for Federal jobs, one of whom states that understanding a Federal job announcement can take hours and likens the process to explicating a poem in English class. It is well known that the Federal hiring process is lengthy and complex. Agencies need to look for ways to streamline and improve the hiring process, especially now that the Federal government is facing a large number of retirements. One easy step that agencies can take is to write announcements in plain language. Writing Federal job announcements in plain language would save applicants considerable time and energy spent attempting to figure out what a job advertisement means. Plain, clear, accessible ads are much more likely to attract candidates' attention than opaque and incomprehensible ones. By writing job ads in plain language, agencies likely would attract more candidates with strong qualifications, which would go a long way toward addressing the Federal Government's human capital challenges. I urge my colleagues to support the Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2007, S. 2291, and I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1163, as amended, the Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act of 2007. This bill would expand benefit eligibility for veterans with service-connected vision impairment and enhance the burial and memorial benefits offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This legislation, which I introduced in April of this year, has subsequently been amended and reported favorably by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. As amended, S. 1163 would modify the standard that the Department of Veterans Affairs uses when determining blindness and improve compensation for veterans who experience impairment of vision in both eyes. The measure would also enhance burial and memorial benefits for veterans, and further maintain the integrity of veterans benefits by making certain that those in receipt of certain needs-based benefits qualify for such benefits. Vision impairment is a serious disability that frequently results from injuries sustained on the battlefield. We are all aware that traumatic brain injuries caused by roadside bombs on the Iraqi highways are one of the greatest dangers that our service men and women face in Iraq. These injuries are frequently accompanied by damage to the individual's vision. As of August of this year, VA had granted service- connection for vision impairment to 230 veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. These veterans face significant readjustment challenges when they return to civilian life. Often, they find that they cannot resume the same occupations or daily activities that were staples of their lives before their injuries. This bill would enhance disability compensation benefits for two distinct groups of veterans with impaired vision due to service--those with service-connected blindness in one eye who subsequently suffer loss of vision in the other eye later in life and those who receive special monthly compensation for multiple disabilities, including vision impairment. In both cases, this legislation would amend the vision impairment criteria used by VA so as to encompass veterans with 20/200 vision or less, the standard for blindness used by the Social Security Administration and the American Medical Association. Earlier this session, the House passed a companion bill, H.R. 797, the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act, which would make the same change to the paired organ vision criteria as S. 1163. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the sponsor of that bill, Representative Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin. A long-time ophthalmologist at the VA hospital in Madison, WI, Dr. James Allen, brought the issue to Representative Baldwin's attention several years ago and she has since worked to make the necessary change on behalf of blinded veterans. Representative Baldwin and Dr. Allen deserve thanks and credit for their efforts on behalf of veterans. The amended bill also includes several provisions that would enhance burial and memorial benefits for veterans. I will briefly describe them. The amended bill would permanently authorize VA to provide government headstones or markers for the privately-marked graves of veterans interred at private cemeteries. Current law authorizes VA to furnish, upon request, an appropriate headstone or marker for the grave of an eligible individual who died after September 10, 2001, and who is buried in a private cemetery, notwithstanding that the grave is marked by a headstone or marker furnished at private expense. Thus, in some cases, an individual's grave may have two markers--one privately- purchased and one furnished by VA. Prior to 2001, this authority had been suspended for 11 years, making those who died between November 1, 1990, and September 10, 2001, ineligible for the benefit. Furthermore, the current authority is only temporary, set to expire on December 31, 2007. This bill would address these temporal constraints by eliminating the sunset and making the authority permanent, and by making the authority retroactive to cover the 11-year gap in current law. In addition, this bill would give VA the authority to furnish a new medallion or other device that could be placed on an existing grave marker in a private cemetery to signify that the deceased was a veteran, in lieu of providing a second marker or headstone. The amended bill would also repeal the current 2-year window within which States must file for reimbursement from VA for the interment or inurnment of the unclaimed remains of deceased veterans. To assist States in meeting some or all of their cemetery operations and maintenance expenses, current law requires VA to pay to States a $300 plot allowance for the interment or inurnment of eligible veterans and reserve component members. In order to receive plot allowance revenue, States must currently submit claims within 2 years after the permanent burial or cremation of the remains has occurred. However, the 2-year window within which States must file can prove difficult to meet in situations in which remains are not identified as those of a veteran until after the 2-year period has expired. Finally, the amended bill would authorize $5 million to cover a portion of the operational and maintenance expenses of State cemeteries under criteria to be determined by VA. The need to incentivize greater participation by States in the State cemetery grant program was discussed in a December 19, 2000, VA-contracted report entitled An Assessment of the Burial Benefits Administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The report found that an option for better serving veterans and their families was to ``provide maintenance support to State veterans cemeteries.'' I am pleased to advise my colleagues that the provisions in this bill are paid for by utilizing the National Directory for New Hires to make certain that those in receipt of certain needs-based benefits qualify for such benefits. The savings from this provision more than pays for the expansion of benefits to veterans that are included in this bill. This is a sensible bill that would provide small but important improvements to benefits of great importance to many veterans and their families. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2007. I am pleased that Senators Claire McCaskill, Tom Carper, and Carl Levin have joined me as original co-sponsors of this bill. Our bill is very similar to H.R. 3548, introduced by Representative Bruce Braley in September, along with original co-sponsors Representatives Todd Akin, Dan Burton, James McGovern, and Nancy Boyda. This bill would establish plain language as the standard writing style for Government documents issued to the public. Plain language is language that the intended audience can readily understand and use because it is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing. This bill would extend an initiative that President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore started nearly a decade ago as part of the Reinventing Government initiative. In 1998 President Clinton directed agencies to write in plain language. Although many agencies have made progress in writing more clearly, the requirement never was fully implemented, and in recent years, the focus on writing in plain language has flagged. This legislation will renew that focus. The benefits of requiring the Government to write in plain language are numerous. For example, using plain language improves customer service. Veterans, taxpayers, senior citizens, and others who need to understand Government instructions and fill out Government forms should not have to wade through complicated, bureaucratic language. Needlessly complicated Government documents waste countless hours of taxpayers' time and cause unnecessary errors. The Federal Government works best for the American people if Government documents are clear and straightforward. Filling out Government forms should not be like solving a complex crossword puzzle. Writing in plain language also will make the Government more efficient and cost effective. Agencies that write in plain language spend less time answering customer service questions, and they obtain better compliance because people make fewer mistakes. Furthermore, using plain language makes Government more transparent. The American people cannot hold their Government accountable if no one can understand the information that the Government provides about its actions and its requirements. Numerous organizations have called on Congress to require the Federal Government to use plain language. For example, the AARP wrote a letter in support of this legislation stating that every day AARP members contact AARP staff because they do not understand letters that they received from the Federal Government. The confusion is not the readers' fault. It is because many Federal Government letters are written in dense, complicated language that few people who are not lawyers could be expected to understand. Certainly, anyone who has ever filled out their own tax forms can sympathize. Additionally, several small business organizations--including the National Small Business Association, the Small Business Legislative Council, and Women Impacting Public Policy--support the need for plain language. The reason is simple. Small businesses waste considerable time, effort, and money trying to decipher what the Federal Government requires of them. This bill addresses two important elements for ensuring that use of plain language becomes standard in Federal agencies: training and oversight. Each agency will report their plans to train employees to write in plain language. Writing in plain, clear, concise, and easily understandable language is a skill that Congress and Federal agencies must foster. As Thomas Jefferson once said, ``The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.'' As a former teacher and principal, I understand that even very smart people must be trained to write plainly. Additionally, strong congressional oversight will ensure that agencies implement the plain language requirements. Agencies will be required to designate a senior official responsible for implementing plain language requirements. Each agency will be required to report to Congress how it will ensure compliance with the plain language requirement and on its progress. A few examples of the documents that will be covered by the plain language requirement are Federal tax forms; veterans' benefit forms; information for workers about Federal health, safety, overtime pay, and medical leave laws; Social Security and Medicare benefit forms; and Federal college aid applications. These documents help the American people obtain important Government benefits and improve their quality of life. To avoid imposing an unmanageable burden on agencies, agencies will not be required to re-write existing documents in plain language. Only new or substantially revised documents will be covered. Similarly, this bill does not cover regulations, so that agencies can focus first on improving their every day communications with the American people. We recognize that it will be more challenging to write regulations--which by their nature often will be complex and technical--in plain language. Requiring agencies to write in plain language is an important step in improving the way the Federal Government communicates with the American people. 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 today to introduce the Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2007. I am pleased that Senators Claire McCaskill, Tom Carper, and Carl Levin have joined me as original co-sponsors of this bill. Our bill is very similar to H.R. 3548, introduced by Representative Bruce Braley in September, along with original co-sponsors Representatives Todd Akin, Dan Burton, James McGovern, and Nancy Boyda. This bill would establish plain language as the standard writing style for Government documents issued to the public. Plain language is language that the intended audience can readily understand and use because it is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing. This bill would extend an initiative that President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore started nearly a decade ago as part of the Reinventing Government initiative. In 1998 President Clinton directed agencies to write in plain language. Although many agencies have made progress in writing more clearly, the requirement never was fully implemented, and in recent years, the focus on writing in plain language has flagged. This legislation will renew that focus. The benefits of requiring the Government to write in plain language are numerous. For example, using plain language improves customer service. Veterans, taxpayers, senior citizens, and others who need to understand Government instructions and fill out Government forms should not have to wade through complicated, bureaucratic language. Needlessly complicated Government documents waste countless hours of taxpayers' time and cause unnecessary errors. The Federal Government works best for the American people if Government documents are clear and straightforward. Filling out Government forms should not be like solving a complex crossword puzzle. Writing in plain language also will make the Government more efficient and cost effective. Agencies that write in plain language spend less time answering customer service questions, and they obtain better compliance because people make fewer mistakes. Furthermore, using plain language makes Government more transparent. The American people cannot hold their Government accountable if no one can understand the information that the Government provides about its actions and its requirements. Numerous organizations have called on Congress to require the Federal Government to use plain language. For example, the AARP wrote a letter in support of this legislation stating that every day AARP members contact AARP staff because they do not understand letters that they received from the Federal Government. The confusion is not the readers' fault. It is because many Federal Government letters are written in dense, complicated language that few people who are not lawyers could be expected to understand. Certainly, anyone who has ever filled out their own tax forms can sympathize. Additionally, several small business organizations--including the National Small Business Association, the Small Business Legislative Council, and Women Impacting Public Policy--support the need for plain language. The reason is simple. Small businesses waste considerable time, effort, and money trying to decipher what the Federal Government requires of them. This bill addresses two important elements for ensuring that use of plain language becomes standard in Federal agencies: training and oversight. Each agency will report their plans to train employees to write in plain language. Writing in plain, clear, concise, and easily understandable language is a skill that Congress and Federal agencies must foster. As Thomas Jefferson once said, ``The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.'' As a former teacher and principal, I understand that even very smart people must be trained to write plainly. Additionally, strong congressional oversight will ensure that agencies implement the plain language requirements. Agencies will be required to designate a senior official responsible for implementing plain language requirements. Each agency will be required to report to Congress how it will ensure compliance with the plain language requirement and on its progress. A few examples of the documents that will be covered by the plain language requirement are Federal tax forms; veterans' benefit forms; information for workers about Federal health, safety, overtime pay, and medical leave laws; Social Security and Medicare benefit forms; and Federal college aid applications. These documents help the American people obtain important Government benefits and improve their quality of life. To avoid imposing an unmanageable burden on agencies, agencies will not be required to re-write existing documents in plain language. Only new or substantially revised documents will be covered. Similarly, this bill does not cover regulations, so that agencies can focus first on improving their every day communications with the American people. We recognize that it will be more challenging to write regulations--which by their nature often will be complex and technical--in plain language. Requiring agencies to write in plain language is an important step in improving the way the Federal Government communicates with the American people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I congratulate Leslie K. Osborn for earning Hawaii's first Silver Award in Venturing, the highest award in the Venturing program of the Boy Scouts of America. Leslie will be honored with this award at the annual Aloha Council Eagle Scout Banquet in April of 2008. Venturing was created by the Boy Scouts of America in 1998 to provide positive experiences for young men and women and the tools needed to become responsible and caring adults. Involvement in the Boy Scouts of America is a long-standing tradition in the Osborn family. Both Leslie's older brother, Bobby, and her younger sister, Heather, are active in the program. Parents, LTC John and Patricia Osborn, teach their children strong family values and respect for God and country. Leslie is a strong young woman who is motivated by the desire to prove that she has the same capabilities as boys. She spends much of her time building her strength in wilderness survival through such activities as camping, climbing, and hiking. Leslie is also an exceptional student. She has maintained a 4.0 GPA at Kalaheo High School while enjoying hobbies such as dancing jazz and ballet. She is very involved in community services, both on her own time through her work at the Marine Corps commissary and through her activities in the Boy Scouts program. She has participated in numerous community outreach programs, including the annual Toys for Tots program as well as beach cleanups. She plans to attend college with the goal of becoming a veterinarian. I look forward to hearing more about Leslie's successes as she continues to pursue her education and personal goals. Congratulations to her parents John and Patricia, who have raised their daughter to be a remarkable young lady. I wish Leslie and the rest of the Osborn family the very best in their future endeavors.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I find it disturbing and disheartening to know that efforts to heal through modern medicine end up creating new medical problems, in addition to those that are preexisting. Unfortunately, this is what is occurring with the rise of dangerous drug-resistant forms of staph that have become prevalent as of late. I want to talk about the potential dangers of these infections, especially in a medical environment where patients are most vulnerable, and also give much-deserved praise to the Department of Veterans Affairs for their work to combat staph infections in their hospitals. There are many types of staph bacteria. While some forms of staph are harmless, others are fatal. A recent study conducted by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology suggests that as many as 1.2 million U.S. hospital patients are infected every year by a form of staph that is resistant to drugs. Drug-resistant staph, often referred to as MRSA, Methicillin- resistant Staphylococcus aureus, has adapted in response to common antibiotics which have been used to combat these and other infections. Most staph infections arise from visits to the hospital and other health care settings. The Department of Veterans Affairs is taking effective steps to reduce staph infections in their hospitals. Based on a successful pilot program at VA's Pittsburgh health care system, VA has instituted a staph prevention program in all 153 of their hospitals. Their prevention system is based on a strategy of enhanced hygiene and culture change among health care workers. Patients are monitored, proven precautions are followed for those affected, and close attention is paid to common sources of infection. The Pittsburgh pilot led to a 50-percent decline in staph infections, something Acting VA Secretary Gordon Mansfield referred to as ``dramatic reductions'' in staph infections, and I look forward to similarly positive outcomes across the veterans' health care system. It is my hope that VA will continue to improve their prevention programs and share information with other health care providers. This will help VA safeguard our veterans and their families from staph infections, serve as a successful model for our country's hospitals and medical facilities, and improve the well-being of our Nation's citizens.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, once again, I support the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. I am frustrated that the President continues to oppose legislation that will expand access to health care for our Nation's children. The President's veto of the previous bill shows that this administration fails to understand the domestic needs of our country. The Children's Health Insurance Program is a successful program that has improved the quality of life for our Nation's children. Since its enactment in 1997, the number of uninsured children have been reduced by one-third, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act will preserve access to health care for the 6.6 million children currently enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program. In addition, this bill expands access for approximately 4 million more children. Approximately 16,000 children in Hawaii lack health insurance. I am proud that my home State of Hawaii has continued to develop innovative programs to help provide access to health care for children. This year, the Hawaii State Legislature established the Keiki Care program, a public-private partnership intended to ensure that every child in Hawaii has access to health care. This administration is being irresponsible by denying resources to states for children's health care. Without access to insurance, children cannot learn, be active, and grow into healthy adults. I continue to appreciate the inclusion of a provision to restore Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, DSH, allotments for Hawaii and Tennessee. Medicaid DSH payments are designed to provide additional support to hospitals that treat large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients. I developed this provision as an amendment with my colleagues-- Senators Alexander, Inouye, and Corker, that provide both states with DSH allotments. Hawaii would be provided with a $10 million Medicaid DSH allotment for fiscal year 2008. For fiscal year 2009 and beyond, Hawaii's allotment would increase with annual inflation updates just like other low DSH States. Hawaii and Tennessee are the only two States that do not have DSH allotments. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created specific DSH allotments for each State based on their actual DSH expenditures for fiscal year 1995. In 1994, Hawaii implemented the QUEST demonstration program that was designed to reduce the number of uninsured and improve access to health care. The prior Medicaid DSH program was incorporated into QUEST. As a result of the demonstration program, Hawaii did not have DSH expenditures in 1995 and was not provided a DSH allotment. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 made further changes to the DSH program, which included the establishment of a floor for DSH allotments. However, States without allotments were again left out. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 made additional changes in the DSH program. This included an increase in DSH allotments for low DSH states. Again, States without allotments were left out. Hawaii and Tennessee should be treated like other extremely low DSH States and be provided with Medicaid DSH allotments every year. Other states that have obtained waivers similar to Hawaii's have retained their DSH allotments. Hospitals in Hawaii are having a difficult time trying to meet the elevated demands placed on them by the increasing number of uninsured people. DSH payments will help our hospitals continue to provide essential health care services to people in need. All States must have access to resources to ensure that hospitals can continue to provide services for uninsured and low-income residents. This administration fails to adequately understand the importance of this legislation. This bill helps the State of Hawaii provide essential health care access to children that currently lack health insurance. It will also provide vital support to our hospitals that care for Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured patients.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I congratulate a number of young adults from Hawaii for being selected to perform on the National Public Radio, NPR, program, ``From the Top.'' ``From the Top'' is a weekly, hour-long show featuring America's most talented, young musicians. It is one of the most listened to programs on public radio with an audience of approximately 750,000 each week, over 250 stations nationwide. The show is hosted by pianist Christopher O'Riley and recorded in front of a live audience. The young adults include those from the Hawaii Youth Opera Chorus Na Leo Kuho`okahi ensemble: Sienna Achong, Juliana Besenbruch, Olivia Borges, Ka'iulani Bowers, Karyn Castro, Hina Felmet, Pili Gardner, Makena Hamilton, Marika Ikehara, Alana Mueller, Jade Olszowka, Noe Ramirez, Erin Richardson, Sarah Sagarang, Kanoe Tjorvatjoglou, Krysti Uranaka, and Kiyoe Wellington. Also performing are: Laura Bleakley, Maile Cha, Jacob DeForest, Asia Doike, Irwin Jiang, Annie Kwok, Alda Lam, Andrew Ramos, Tyler Ramos, Yulia Sharipova, Rachel Stanton, and T.J. Tario. The program will be produced during two performances. The first performance will be at Oahu's historic Hawaii Theatre on November 14, and the second at Maui Arts and Cultural Center on November 16. In addition to being taped, the students will be participating in assemblies at eight schools on three islands. Approximately 100 young people are chosen each year to appear on ``From the Top,'' so to have Hawaii's youth be selected is truly an honor. The students' hard work and devotion to music has allowed them to excel in the performing arts. However, they would not have been able to succeed without the support of their family, friends, and instructors. Instructors play an essential role in guiding a student, and they need to be commended for their hard work and dedication to teaching as well.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this month, the county of Maui celebrated the centennial anniversary of the historic Wailuku Courthouse. Built in 1907, the Wailuku Courthouse served as the center of the judicial system on Maui for more than 80 years. Today, it is home to Maui County's Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. The Hawaiian Organic Act, passed by Congress in 1900, created a system of governance for the new Territory of Hawaii. County governments were established along with a territorial court system. The town of Wailuku was selected as the seat of Maui's county government, making it the logical place to construct a new courthouse and other public buildings. The contract to build the Wailuku Courthouse, at the cost of $23,312.40, was awarded to Angus P. McDonald in September 1907. Construction began the next month and was completed a year later. In 1909, the Honorable Judge Aluwae Noa Kepoikai became the first judge to preside over cases presented in the new Wailuku Courthouse. As Hawaii and the county of Maui grew, so did the demand for legal services and the needs of the judiciary. In 1988, the State judicial system on Maui moved into a new building, and in 1991, plans were made to gut the courthouse. However, the county of Maui intervened and took control of the courthouse by way of a land swap with the State, saving the historic building and its interior. A $1.8 million restoration followed, and in 1993, Maui's Department of the Prosecuting Attorney moved into the newly renovated courthouse. The historic courthouse has served the people of Maui for 100 years. The fact that it remains as both a working government building and as an architectural treasure of Hawaii's past is the result of the efforts of the many people who are to be commended and honored as we celebrate the centennial of the Wailuku Courthouse.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will amend the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963, to further enhance education, instruction and recreation opportunities available in our Nation's tropical botanical gardens. I wish to also thank my colleagues, Senators Daniel Inouye, Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson, for joining me in sponsoring this measure. Studies have indicated that throughout the world, our plants and their habitats are quickly disappearing. With 90 percent of these species existing in tropical areas, it is imperative that we continue to strive for a greater understanding of how we can preserve these natural resources. The legislation that I am introducing today, the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 Amendments Act, will authorize $1 million for the National Botanical Gardens in fiscal year 2009, and up to $500,000 each fiscal year thereafter. These funds are to be matched by State and local governments as well as private individuals. Since Congress chartered the National Tropical Botanical Gardens in 1964, the gardens have not only thrived and flourished, but have provided valuable research. This research is vital to enriching our lives through not only perpetuating the survival of ecosystems, but preserving the cultural knowledge of these tropical regions. As we, and the rest of the world, continue to develop rural areas, we slowly deplete our natural resources and place our Nation's tropical plant bio-diversity at risk. It is our responsibility to ensure that measures are in place that will preserve our finite natural resources, or we may find ourselves without the basics for survival. These gardens serve as safe havens for endangered tropical plants where scientists strive to understand the evolution, structure relationships and qualities of these plants for the future benefit of all Americans. The gardens also serve as a valuable educational tool, where students of all ages go to learn about environmental stewardship and horticultural practices, and discover that science can be fun. The collections at these gardens provide valuable information that conservationists and others utilize to study and determine how to protect these resources by halting further degradation of habitats so that at-risk species will have a better chance of surviving in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation in order to ensure that these gardens continue to not only thrive for generations to come, but ensure that these resources will be preserved.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will amend the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963, to further enhance education, instruction and recreation opportunities available in our Nation's tropical botanical gardens. I wish to also thank my colleagues, Senators Daniel Inouye, Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson, for joining me in sponsoring this measure. Studies have indicated that throughout the world, our plants and their habitats are quickly disappearing. With 90 percent of these species existing in tropical areas, it is imperative that we continue to strive for a greater understanding of how we can preserve these natural resources. The legislation that I am introducing today, the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 Amendments Act, will authorize $1 million for the National Botanical Gardens in fiscal year 2009, and up to $500,000 each fiscal year thereafter. These funds are to be matched by State and local governments as well as private individuals. Since Congress chartered the National Tropical Botanical Gardens in 1964, the gardens have not only thrived and flourished, but have provided valuable research. This research is vital to enriching our lives through not only perpetuating the survival of ecosystems, but preserving the cultural knowledge of these tropical regions. As we, and the rest of the world, continue to develop rural areas, we slowly deplete our natural resources and place our Nation's tropical plant bio-diversity at risk. It is our responsibility to ensure that measures are in place that will preserve our finite natural resources, or we may find ourselves without the basics for survival. These gardens serve as safe havens for endangered tropical plants where scientists strive to understand the evolution, structure relationships and qualities of these plants for the future benefit of all Americans. The gardens also serve as a valuable educational tool, where students of all ages go to learn about environmental stewardship and horticultural practices, and discover that science can be fun. The collections at these gardens provide valuable information that conservationists and others utilize to study and determine how to protect these resources by halting further degradation of habitats so that at-risk species will have a better chance of surviving in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation in order to ensure that these gardens continue to not only thrive for generations to come, but ensure that these resources will be preserved.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am speaking in support of Senate passage of S. 423, the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2007.'' This measure, which I introduced earlier this year and which the Committee on Veterans' Affairs reported on July 24, would direct the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to increase, effective December 1, 2007, the rates of veterans' compensation to keep pace with the rising cost-of-living in this country. The rate adjustment is equal to that provided on an annual basis to Social Security recipients and is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index. Congress regularly enacts an annual cost-of-living adjustment,''COLA,'' for veterans' compensation in order to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of the veterans and their families who depend upon this income to meet their needs. This past year Congress passed, and the President signed into law, Public Law 109-361, which resulted in a COLA increase of 3.3 percent for 2007. The cost-of-living adjustment for 2008 will be 2.3 percent. As I have stated many times, it is important that we view veterans compensation, including the annual COLA, and all benefits earned by veterans, as a continuing cost of war. Unfortunately, it seems highly likely that the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue and this in turn will result in injuries and disabilities that will yield an increase in claims for compensation. One million, six hundred thousand servicemembers have deployed in support of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom, and studies by VA indicate that the most significant predictor of new claims activity is the size of the active force. The COLA affects, among other benefits, veterans' disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children. Many of the more than 3 million recipients of those benefits depend upon these tax-free payments not only to provide for their own basic needs, but those of their spouses, children and parents as well. Without an annual COLA increase, these veterans and their families would see the value of their hard-earned benefits slowly dwindle, and we, as a Congress, would be in abandonment of our duty to ensure that those who sacrificed so much for this country receive the benefits and services to which they are entitled. Disbursement of disability compensation to our nation's veterans constitutes a core responsibility of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is a necessary measure of gratitude afforded to those veterans whose lives were irrevocably altered by their service to this country. I urge all of our colleagues to support passage of this COLA increase. I also ask our colleagues for their continued support for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Labor-Management Partnership Act of 2007 to restore the labor- management partnerships and council that were established by President Clinton in 1993. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Representative Danny Davis, D-IL, who is introducing companion legislation in the House, and Senator Hillary Clinton, who is cosponsoring this bill. On October 1, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12871 establishing a National Partnership Council of Federal agency representatives and labor organizations to advise the President on matters involving labor-management relations. The Executive Order was in response to long-standing labor-management conflicts and the need for greater cooperation between labor and management in Government. In the early 1990s the Government Accountability Office and others identified labor-management partnerships as contributing to increased productivity, better customer service, and higher employee satisfaction. The Office of Personnel Management, OPM, concurred with those findings in 2001. In a the letter to President Clinton accompanying the report, then-OPM Director Janice Lachance said, ``The evidence shows a real shift toward labor-management cooperation and away from the adversarial approach so common in the past. I see a strong, consistent desire on both sides of the table to continue on the path toward collaborative labor-management relations and no interest in returning to the old ways of doing business.'' Despite the success of the program, President Bush revoked the Clinton Executive Order on February 17, 2001, less than one month after taking office. Since that time, labor-management relations have deteriorated throughout the Federal Government. The new personnel systems at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, which have reduced collective bargaining rights for those employees, have lowered employee morale and heightened the adversarial nature of labor- management relations in the federal government. It has become clear that participation in the decision making process through labor- management partnerships often leads to greater employee understanding and acceptance and a smoother transition to the new policy or program. As the Clinton Executive Order said, ``Only by changing the nature of federal labor-management relations so that managers, employees, and employees' elected union representatives serve as partners will it be possible to design and implement comprehensive changes necessary to reform government.'' I urge my colleagues to join with me in encouraging labor-management partnership and a cooperative solution to resolving Federal workplace issues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.