Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as we celebrate Public Service Recognition Week and the dedication and professionalism of Federal employees, I rise today to introduce legislation to reassert protections for Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment against discrimination based on one's sexual orientation. The Clarification of Federal Employment Protection Act will spell out the protections that Federal employees currently have but have been denied by the Office of Special Counsel, OSC. I am pleased that Senators Lieberman, Collins, Levin, Leahy, Feingold, and Clinton are cosponsoring this important legislation and that Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is introducing a companion bill in the House. When Congress passed the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, it established a list of prohibited personnel practices, personnel actions that were clearly not in line with the Merit System Principles and were subject to prosecution by OSC. Examples include personnel actions, such as hiring, firing, and changes in pay, against employees based on a whistleblower disclosure, nepotism, or off-duty conduct. The prohibition on personnel action based on off-duty conduct, found in section 2302(b)(10) of title 5, United States Code, has been interpreted for years to prohibit the taking of personnel actions against employees and applicants for employment based on their sexual orientation. In 1980, Mr. Alan Campbell, Director of the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, at the time, wrote a memorandum to the heads of all executive branch agencies advising that, under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(10), employees and applicants were to be protected against inquiries into or actions based upon non job-related conduct, including religious or community affiliations, or sexual orientation. The position by OPM has been reaffirmed time and again, most recently by the current OPM Director, Linda Springer, in her responses to questions posed by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in relation to her nomination for the position. In fact, to this day, OPM's website contains a guide to Federal employee rights which states that section 2302(b)(10) has been interpreted by OPM to prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation. OPM is not alone in this interpretation. The previous Special Counsel also interpreted 2302(b)(10) to protect against discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation. For example, in 2003, OSC secured corrective and disciplinary action against a Federal supervisor who discriminated against Federal job applicant because he was gay in violation of section 2302(b)(10). In 2004, following the debate spurred by OSC over the interpretation of this provision, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the president ``believes that no Federal employee should be subject to unlawful discrimination, and Federal agencies will fully enforce the law against discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation.'' Upon the nomination of Scott Bloch to be the new Special Counsel, I asked the nominee about his interpretation of the laws protecting Federal employees and applicants against sexual orientation discrimination. When asked if he would support the interpretation of 2302(b)(10) by OPM and OSC, he said that he would not fail to enforce a claim of sexual orientation discrimination before OSC that shows through the evidence that the statute has been violated. Nonetheless, after being in office for only a few months, Special Counsel Bloch conducted a review of the discrimination statute and claimed that section 2302(b)(10) only provides protection against discrimination based on conduct, including sexual conduct, but not one's sexual orientation. Instead, Mr. Bloch claims that for discrimination based on status, referring to sexual orientation, it would have to be listed under section 2302(b)(1), which protects employees from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or marital status. This departure from the long-standing interpretation of (b)(10) by OSC and OPM is illogical. When a supervisor who dislikes gays or lesbians refuses to hire an applicant who the supervisor believes is gay or lesbian, it follows that the supervisor is basing the personnel action on disapproval of the applicant's presumed sexual conduct. In other words, in the context of sexual orientation discrimination, status implies conduct. I believe that Congress must act to guarantee the protections it has provided to Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment. We cannot allow one administration official's opinion to undermine the merit system or the rights and protections Federal workers. The legislation I am introducing today would affirm that sexual orientation is protected by section 2302(b)(10) but also make it a clear protected status under section (b)(1). I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as we celebrate Public Service Recognition Week and the dedication and professionalism of Federal employees, I rise today to introduce legislation to reassert protections for Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment against discrimination based on one's sexual orientation. The Clarification of Federal Employment Protection Act will spell out the protections that Federal employees currently have but have been denied by the Office of Special Counsel, OSC. I am pleased that Senators Lieberman, Collins, Levin, Leahy, Feingold, and Clinton are cosponsoring this important legislation and that Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is introducing a companion bill in the House. When Congress passed the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, it established a list of prohibited personnel practices, personnel actions that were clearly not in line with the Merit System Principles and were subject to prosecution by OSC. Examples include personnel actions, such as hiring, firing, and changes in pay, against employees based on a whistleblower disclosure, nepotism, or off-duty conduct. The prohibition on personnel action based on off-duty conduct, found in section 2302(b)(10) of title 5, United States Code, has been interpreted for years to prohibit the taking of personnel actions against employees and applicants for employment based on their sexual orientation. In 1980, Mr. Alan Campbell, Director of the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, at the time, wrote a memorandum to the heads of all executive branch agencies advising that, under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(10), employees and applicants were to be protected against inquiries into or actions based upon non job-related conduct, including religious or community affiliations, or sexual orientation. The position by OPM has been reaffirmed time and again, most recently by the current OPM Director, Linda Springer, in her responses to questions posed by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in relation to her nomination for the position. In fact, to this day, OPM's website contains a guide to Federal employee rights which states that section 2302(b)(10) has been interpreted by OPM to prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation. OPM is not alone in this interpretation. The previous Special Counsel also interpreted 2302(b)(10) to protect against discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation. For example, in 2003, OSC secured corrective and disciplinary action against a Federal supervisor who discriminated against Federal job applicant because he was gay in violation of section 2302(b)(10). In 2004, following the debate spurred by OSC over the interpretation of this provision, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the president ``believes that no Federal employee should be subject to unlawful discrimination, and Federal agencies will fully enforce the law against discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation.'' Upon the nomination of Scott Bloch to be the new Special Counsel, I asked the nominee about his interpretation of the laws protecting Federal employees and applicants against sexual orientation discrimination. When asked if he would support the interpretation of 2302(b)(10) by OPM and OSC, he said that he would not fail to enforce a claim of sexual orientation discrimination before OSC that shows through the evidence that the statute has been violated. Nonetheless, after being in office for only a few months, Special Counsel Bloch conducted a review of the discrimination statute and claimed that section 2302(b)(10) only provides protection against discrimination based on conduct, including sexual conduct, but not one's sexual orientation. Instead, Mr. Bloch claims that for discrimination based on status, referring to sexual orientation, it would have to be listed under section 2302(b)(1), which protects employees from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or marital status. This departure from the long-standing interpretation of (b)(10) by OSC and OPM is illogical. When a supervisor who dislikes gays or lesbians refuses to hire an applicant who the supervisor believes is gay or lesbian, it follows that the supervisor is basing the personnel action on disapproval of the applicant's presumed sexual conduct. In other words, in the context of sexual orientation discrimination, status implies conduct. I believe that Congress must act to guarantee the protections it has provided to Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment. We cannot allow one administration official's opinion to undermine the merit system or the rights and protections Federal workers. The legislation I am introducing today would affirm that sexual orientation is protected by section 2302(b)(10) but also make it a clear protected status under section (b)(1). I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Daniel Inouye, to introduce legislation to convert a temporary judgeship for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii to a permanent position. There are currently 3 permanent Federal judgeships and one temporary Federal judgeship in the U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii. The Judicial Improvement Act of 1990, P.L. 101-650 created the temporary position and mandates that the first vacancy occurring in Hawaii after October 2004 cannot be filled. The District of Hawaii will be left with only 3 Federal judge positions upon a judge vacating his or her position. The loss of a judgeship will severely impact Hawaii's judicial system. In March 2007, the Judicial Conference recommended that Congress convert 5 temporary judgeships, one of which is in the District of Hawaii, to permanent status. Their recommendation is largely based on the significant increase in weighted filings that would occur if a judgeship is lost. The Conference projects that the current weighted filing of 380 per judgeship would climb to 507 per judgeship, which is 18 percent above the Conference standard, should the District of Hawaii lose a judgeship. In addition, the Conference reported that the median time from filing to disposition for criminal cases in Hawaii has continued to increase from 1999 to 2005, making Hawaii's case processing times the second slowest in the nation. Since 2001, the District Court of Hawaii has completed an average of 50 trials per year, significantly less than the national average. Although Hawaii has 4 judgeships, 2 are senior judges who only handle a small number of civil cases. The limited assistance provided by these senior judges is likely to decline further in the near future. These judges are not able to retire due to the constraints put forth by the loss of the temporary judgeship seat, should one of the current judges decide to leave. Furthermore, receiving assistance from visiting judges is made difficult by the high cost of travel to Hawaii. For these, and many other reasons, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit supports the Judicial Conference's recommendation to convert this temporary judgeship to a permanent position. I share the concern of many in Hawaii's legal community that the lack of a fourth permanent position will delay the timely issuance of justice in matters pending before the U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii. This is a disservice to all. The economic impact of extending trials and prolonging time spent in jail will burden Hawaii's taxpayers. Moreover, the lack of timely judicial review will have negative social impacts by prolonging the disruption in individuals' families and lives. The bill we introduce today would ensure 4 Federal judgeships remain active in Hawaii to address the needs of the District Court of Hawaii and the people of Hawaii.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Daniel Inouye, to introduce legislation to convert a temporary judgeship for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii to a permanent position. There are currently 3 permanent Federal judgeships and one temporary Federal judgeship in the U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii. The Judicial Improvement Act of 1990, P.L. 101-650 created the temporary position and mandates that the first vacancy occurring in Hawaii after October 2004 cannot be filled. The District of Hawaii will be left with only 3 Federal judge positions upon a judge vacating his or her position. The loss of a judgeship will severely impact Hawaii's judicial system. In March 2007, the Judicial Conference recommended that Congress convert 5 temporary judgeships, one of which is in the District of Hawaii, to permanent status. Their recommendation is largely based on the significant increase in weighted filings that would occur if a judgeship is lost. The Conference projects that the current weighted filing of 380 per judgeship would climb to 507 per judgeship, which is 18 percent above the Conference standard, should the District of Hawaii lose a judgeship. In addition, the Conference reported that the median time from filing to disposition for criminal cases in Hawaii has continued to increase from 1999 to 2005, making Hawaii's case processing times the second slowest in the nation. Since 2001, the District Court of Hawaii has completed an average of 50 trials per year, significantly less than the national average. Although Hawaii has 4 judgeships, 2 are senior judges who only handle a small number of civil cases. The limited assistance provided by these senior judges is likely to decline further in the near future. These judges are not able to retire due to the constraints put forth by the loss of the temporary judgeship seat, should one of the current judges decide to leave. Furthermore, receiving assistance from visiting judges is made difficult by the high cost of travel to Hawaii. For these, and many other reasons, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit supports the Judicial Conference's recommendation to convert this temporary judgeship to a permanent position. I share the concern of many in Hawaii's legal community that the lack of a fourth permanent position will delay the timely issuance of justice in matters pending before the U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii. This is a disservice to all. The economic impact of extending trials and prolonging time spent in jail will burden Hawaii's taxpayers. Moreover, the lack of timely judicial review will have negative social impacts by prolonging the disruption in individuals' families and lives. The bill we introduce today would ensure 4 Federal judgeships remain active in Hawaii to address the needs of the District Court of Hawaii and the people of Hawaii.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Disabled Veterans Insurance Improvement Act of 2007. The purpose of this legislation is to make certain improvements in the insurance programs available to service-connected disabled veterans. It has two main components. First, this legislation would increase the maximum amount of Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance, VMLI, that a service-connected disabled veteran may purchase from the current maximum of $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 the Department of Veterans Affairs will pay the balance of the mortgage owed up to the maximum amount of insurance purchased. The need for this increase is obvious in today's housing market where, during February, the median sale price of a home in the United States was estimated by the Bureau of Census to be $250,000. My legislation would ensure that this important benefit, which helps secure the financial future of many veterans and their families, keeps pace with changes in the economy. My bill 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. Importantly, unlike existing life insurance programs, the premium rates for this program would be based on the 2001 Commissioners Standard Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality rather than the 1941 mortality table that the Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance, S-DVI, program is based upon. When an insured veteran reaches age 70, two things would occur under this new program of insurance. First, the amount of insurance would be reduced to 20 percent of the amount of insurance in force prior to the veteran's 70th birthday. Second, the veteran would cease making premium payments. This means that during those years where the family's financial obligations would be commensurately higher because of children, mortgages, and the potential impact of any loss of income, the veteran's family would be able to purchase the maximum amount of term life insurance. At age 70, when resources are likely to be most restricted and the need for substantial insurance to take care of a family's needs after the veteran's death have lessened, the veteran would no longer have an obligation to continue to pay any insurance premiums. My proposal provides that application for this insurance would need to be submitted by an eligible veteran within 2 years from the date on which VA establishes a service-connected disability to exist but not later than 10 years after a veteran's release from active duty. It would further provide that during the first year of the program, any eligible veteran who is presently insured under the S-DVI program could convert that insurance to a policy under this new program. Both of the proposals contained in the legislation I am introducing today are compatible with the provisions of S. 643, the proposed Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2007, which I introduced on February 15 of this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a remarkable son of Hawaii, entertainment legend, Don Ho. Don's big heart gave out on April 14, in Waikiki. He was 76 years old. On Saturday, May 5, Hawaii bid a fond aloha to Don Ho, during a ceremony on Waikiki Beach in celebration of his life. Thousands of people attended his memorial. Don didn't plan on a career in entertainment. After his college graduation, he served in the U.S. Air Force, attaining the rank of first lieutenant. When he returned home, he began helping at his mother's quiet neighborhood bar, playing music with friends. That was the beginning of a show business career spanning more than four decades including hit records, motion pictures, television, and sold out performances world-wide. Hawaii was still a young State when Don Ho became an international star, and in many ways he helped put Hawaii on the map. In my travels around the world, people always ask me about Don Ho. Don was a big star wherever he went. He even played in Washington, DC, when I was in the House. And I can tell you, it was a big show. Despite his stature as an entertainment icon, Don was never too busy to spend a few minutes with his fans; young honeymooners, servicemen and women stationed in the islands, or senior citizens on a dream vacation. He had tremendous charisma and talent and because of that he touched many people. Hawaii has lost a beloved son and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Disabled Veterans Insurance Improvement Act of 2007. The purpose of this legislation is to make certain improvements in the insurance programs available to service-connected disabled veterans. It has two main components. First, this legislation would increase the maximum amount of Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance, VMLI, that a service-connected disabled veteran may purchase from the current maximum of $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 the Department of Veterans Affairs will pay the balance of the mortgage owed up to the maximum amount of insurance purchased. The need for this increase is obvious in today's housing market where, during February, the median sale price of a home in the United States was estimated by the Bureau of Census to be $250,000. My legislation would ensure that this important benefit, which helps secure the financial future of many veterans and their families, keeps pace with changes in the economy. My bill 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. Importantly, unlike existing life insurance programs, the premium rates for this program would be based on the 2001 Commissioners Standard Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality rather than the 1941 mortality table that the Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance, S-DVI, program is based upon. When an insured veteran reaches age 70, two things would occur under this new program of insurance. First, the amount of insurance would be reduced to 20 percent of the amount of insurance in force prior to the veteran's 70th birthday. Second, the veteran would cease making premium payments. This means that during those years where the family's financial obligations would be commensurately higher because of children, mortgages, and the potential impact of any loss of income, the veteran's family would be able to purchase the maximum amount of term life insurance. At age 70, when resources are likely to be most restricted and the need for substantial insurance to take care of a family's needs after the veteran's death have lessened, the veteran would no longer have an obligation to continue to pay any insurance premiums. My proposal provides that application for this insurance would need to be submitted by an eligible veteran within 2 years from the date on which VA establishes a service-connected disability to exist but not later than 10 years after a veteran's release from active duty. It would further provide that during the first year of the program, any eligible veteran who is presently insured under the S-DVI program could convert that insurance to a policy under this new program. Both of the proposals contained in the legislation I am introducing today are compatible with the provisions of S. 643, the proposed Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2007, which I introduced on February 15 of this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friends Senators Durbin and Cochran, to reintroduce legislation that will provide students much needed educational opportunities in foreign languages and science, technology engineering and mathematics, STEM. The future economic health and security of our Nation depends on programs such as those called for in our legislation. This country's national security depends upon having a workforce with the necessary science, technology, engineering, math, and foreign language skills to rapidly and efficiently adapt to the challenges of globalization. Yet, we are falling behind. According to a study conducted by the Committee on Economic Development, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other Federal Government agencies do not have a sufficient number of personnel trained in critical languages to translate intelligence information in a timely manner. Similarly, a GAO report issued August 4, 2006, GAO-06- 894 noted that the State Department was still suffering from gaps in language proficiency which could adversely impact its ability to communicate with foreign audiences and execute critical duties. We all know that we live in a global marketplace. The United States, which has the world's largest economy, is the engine for global economic growth. However, this also means that American workers must compete with others in the global market for skilled labor. The signs have long been clear that we are failing to develop the next generation of workers. As a recent study by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education observes, in the United States ``about one-quarter of 15-year-olds fall into the lowest proficiency level on assessments of skills and knowledge.'' The United States ranks 16th among 27 countries in the number of students who earn a college degree or certificate. We can delay no longer in taking the steps to train students to compete and thrive in a multi-lingual and technologically complex environment. Our bill the Homeland Security Education Act, provides schools with the framework they need to prepare our Nation's youth for the future. Its enactment is a critical step in reenergizing and reinvigorating our education system to meet the needs of our Nation. It will increase students' proficiency in foreign languages and encourage them to become scientists and engineers. The Homeland Security Education Act provides schools with the equipment and materials necessary to teach STEM and foreign language courses by encouraging public private partnerships to improve science and math curricular--upgrade laboratory facilities; provide scholarships for students to study math, science, or engineering at the university level; and Establish internship and mentoring opportunities for students in grades K-12; developing cultural awareness and immersion programs in colleges and universities that combine science, technology, and engineering instruction with foreign language to expand international understanding and scientific collaboration; and creating language learning pathways to facilitate proficiency in critical foreign languages from kindergarten through graduate school. In addition, this act addresses the shortage of STEM and foreign language teachers. Our Nation needs mathematicians, scientists, and linguists in order to compete in a global mart. Accordingly, our bill awards scholarships in the amount of $15,000 to language proficient individuals and to practicing scientists and engineers to encourage them to become certified to teach these critical skills to students in high-need, low-income schools. The bill would also allow National Security Education Program scholarship and fellowship recipients to meet their service requirements by teaching in critical areas if they cannot find a national security position in the Federal service. In addition, a key provision awards grants to build professional development programs, summer workshops or institutes, and foreign language distance learning programs for elementary and secondary school teachers in order to facilitate partnerships between 12 schools and institutions of higher education. Not only do we need to encourage individuals and professionals to become teachers in these critical need areas, we also need to encourage students to study languages, science, technology, engineering, and math by underscoring the importance of these subjects to our country's security and economic well-being. As Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings noted in January 2006, only 44 percent of this country's high school students are studying any foreign language, while learning a second or even a third language is compulsory for students in the European Union, China, Thailand, and many other nations. Only 32 percent of undergraduates in the United States receive their degrees in science and engineering compared to 59 percent in China and 66 percent in Japan. Our children deserve better opportunities to become math, science, and language proficient. The Homeland Security Education Act helps correct this growing skill gap between students in the United States and students across the globe by providing scholarships for students to earn their degrees in STEM or a foreign language. Mr. President, education is the foundation of our Nation's long-term security. In order to fulfill our role as a world leader, this Nation needs Americans who are well educated and can communicate and compete in a global environment. The bill we are introducing today will help us meet this essential goal.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friends Senators Durbin and Cochran, to reintroduce legislation that will provide students much needed educational opportunities in foreign languages and science, technology engineering and mathematics, STEM. The future economic health and security of our Nation depends on programs such as those called for in our legislation. This country's national security depends upon having a workforce with the necessary science, technology, engineering, math, and foreign language skills to rapidly and efficiently adapt to the challenges of globalization. Yet, we are falling behind. According to a study conducted by the Committee on Economic Development, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other Federal Government agencies do not have a sufficient number of personnel trained in critical languages to translate intelligence information in a timely manner. Similarly, a GAO report issued August 4, 2006, GAO-06- 894 noted that the State Department was still suffering from gaps in language proficiency which could adversely impact its ability to communicate with foreign audiences and execute critical duties. We all know that we live in a global marketplace. The United States, which has the world's largest economy, is the engine for global economic growth. However, this also means that American workers must compete with others in the global market for skilled labor. The signs have long been clear that we are failing to develop the next generation of workers. As a recent study by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education observes, in the United States ``about one-quarter of 15-year-olds fall into the lowest proficiency level on assessments of skills and knowledge.'' The United States ranks 16th among 27 countries in the number of students who earn a college degree or certificate. We can delay no longer in taking the steps to train students to compete and thrive in a multi-lingual and technologically complex environment. Our bill the Homeland Security Education Act, provides schools with the framework they need to prepare our Nation's youth for the future. Its enactment is a critical step in reenergizing and reinvigorating our education system to meet the needs of our Nation. It will increase students' proficiency in foreign languages and encourage them to become scientists and engineers. The Homeland Security Education Act provides schools with the equipment and materials necessary to teach STEM and foreign language courses by encouraging public private partnerships to improve science and math curricular--upgrade laboratory facilities; provide scholarships for students to study math, science, or engineering at the university level; and Establish internship and mentoring opportunities for students in grades K-12; developing cultural awareness and immersion programs in colleges and universities that combine science, technology, and engineering instruction with foreign language to expand international understanding and scientific collaboration; and creating language learning pathways to facilitate proficiency in critical foreign languages from kindergarten through graduate school. In addition, this act addresses the shortage of STEM and foreign language teachers. Our Nation needs mathematicians, scientists, and linguists in order to compete in a global mart. Accordingly, our bill awards scholarships in the amount of $15,000 to language proficient individuals and to practicing scientists and engineers to encourage them to become certified to teach these critical skills to students in high-need, low-income schools. The bill would also allow National Security Education Program scholarship and fellowship recipients to meet their service requirements by teaching in critical areas if they cannot find a national security position in the Federal service. In addition, a key provision awards grants to build professional development programs, summer workshops or institutes, and foreign language distance learning programs for elementary and secondary school teachers in order to facilitate partnerships between 12 schools and institutions of higher education. Not only do we need to encourage individuals and professionals to become teachers in these critical need areas, we also need to encourage students to study languages, science, technology, engineering, and math by underscoring the importance of these subjects to our country's security and economic well-being. As Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings noted in January 2006, only 44 percent of this country's high school students are studying any foreign language, while learning a second or even a third language is compulsory for students in the European Union, China, Thailand, and many other nations. Only 32 percent of undergraduates in the United States receive their degrees in science and engineering compared to 59 percent in China and 66 percent in Japan. Our children deserve better opportunities to become math, science, and language proficient. The Homeland Security Education Act helps correct this growing skill gap between students in the United States and students across the globe by providing scholarships for students to earn their degrees in STEM or a foreign language. Mr. President, education is the foundation of our Nation's long-term security. In order to fulfill our role as a world leader, this Nation needs Americans who are well educated and can communicate and compete in a global environment. The bill we are introducing today will help us meet this essential goal.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act to ensure fair treatment of commercial airline pilot retirees. I thank my cosponsors, Senators Kennedy, Inouye, Obama, Durbin, Harkin, and Salazar. I also thank Representative George Miller for introducing the companion legislation in the other body. My bill corrects an injustice imposed on pilots whose pensions have been terminated and handed over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC. This bill will lower the age requirement to receive the maximum pension benefits allowed by the PBGC to age 60 for pilots, who are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, to retire before age 65. With the airline industry experiencing severe financial distress, we need to enact this legislation to assist pilots whose companies have been or will be unable to continue their defined benefit pension plans. This bill will require the PBGC to take into account the fact that the pilots are required to retire at the age of 60 when calculating their benefits. The FAA requires commercial aviation pilots to retire when they reach the age of 60. Pilots are therefore denied the maximum pension benefit administered by the PBGC because they are required to retire before the age of 65. Herein lies the problem. If pilots want to work beyond the age of 60, they have to request a waiver from the FAA. It is my understanding that the FAA has only granted these waivers for pilots working for foreign airlines that fly to and from the United States. Therefore, retired pilots whose pensions are administered by the PBGC do not receive the maximum pension guarantee because they are forced to retire at age 60. For plans terminated in 2005, the maximum benefit for someone that retires at 65 is $45,614 a year. For those who retire at 60, the maximum is $29,649. This significant reduction in benefits puts pilots in a difficult position. Their pensions have been reduced significantly and they are prohibited from reentering their profession due to the mandatory retirement age. They are unable to go back to their former jobs. My legislation ensures that pilots are able to obtain the maximum PBGC benefit without being unfairly penalized for having to retire at 60. We must pass this bill to provide some relief for United Airlines, Aloha Airlines, US Airways, Delta, TWA, and other pilots who have had their pensions terminated and taken over by the PBGC and suffer from this wrongly imposed penalty. In the previous Congress, this legislation was included in the Senate-passed version of the Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005. However, this provision was not included in the conference report. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that we can finally provide some relief for our pilots who already have suffered financially due to the termination of their pension plans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act to ensure fair treatment of commercial airline pilot retirees. I thank my cosponsors, Senators Kennedy, Inouye, Obama, Durbin, Harkin, and Salazar. I also thank Representative George Miller for introducing the companion legislation in the other body. My bill corrects an injustice imposed on pilots whose pensions have been terminated and handed over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC. This bill will lower the age requirement to receive the maximum pension benefits allowed by the PBGC to age 60 for pilots, who are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, to retire before age 65. With the airline industry experiencing severe financial distress, we need to enact this legislation to assist pilots whose companies have been or will be unable to continue their defined benefit pension plans. This bill will require the PBGC to take into account the fact that the pilots are required to retire at the age of 60 when calculating their benefits. The FAA requires commercial aviation pilots to retire when they reach the age of 60. Pilots are therefore denied the maximum pension benefit administered by the PBGC because they are required to retire before the age of 65. Herein lies the problem. If pilots want to work beyond the age of 60, they have to request a waiver from the FAA. It is my understanding that the FAA has only granted these waivers for pilots working for foreign airlines that fly to and from the United States. Therefore, retired pilots whose pensions are administered by the PBGC do not receive the maximum pension guarantee because they are forced to retire at age 60. For plans terminated in 2005, the maximum benefit for someone that retires at 65 is $45,614 a year. For those who retire at 60, the maximum is $29,649. This significant reduction in benefits puts pilots in a difficult position. Their pensions have been reduced significantly and they are prohibited from reentering their profession due to the mandatory retirement age. They are unable to go back to their former jobs. My legislation ensures that pilots are able to obtain the maximum PBGC benefit without being unfairly penalized for having to retire at 60. We must pass this bill to provide some relief for United Airlines, Aloha Airlines, US Airways, Delta, TWA, and other pilots who have had their pensions terminated and taken over by the PBGC and suffer from this wrongly imposed penalty. In the previous Congress, this legislation was included in the Senate-passed version of the Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005. However, this provision was not included in the conference report. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that we can finally provide some relief for our pilots who already have suffered financially due to the termination of their pension plans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would reform the Department of Defense Disability Evaluation System. This legislation offers common sense solutions to problems within the Disability Evaluation System that first gained public attention in connection with the stories about the conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Unfortunately, the problems with the Disability Evaluation System are not limited to the Army but exist throughout the military services. At an April 12, 2007, Joint Senate Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committee Hearing, we received testimony that identified problems with the current system. Examples of the issues identified were the failure to use the VA disability rating schedule in a consistent manner across the military services; the failure to include all, not just the most severe medical conditions that would render a servicemember unfit when making a disability decision; the lack of uniform training for Disability Evaluation System personnel; and the lack of accountability and supervision by DoD over the disability process. Some have suggested that the solution to the problems within the Disability Evaluation System is to radically change it. Under current DoD practice, a service-specific Physical Evaluation Board, PEB, makes a ``fitness'' for duty determination. If a servicemember is found to be unfit for continued service, the PEB then makes a disability decision. Instead of seeking ways to ensure that the system functions as intended, some have suggested that the military continue to make ``fitness'' determinations, but that the Department of Veterans Affairs would be responsible for making disability decisions for servicemembers found to be unfit. While this may appear to be a reasonable recommendation, I am concerned that if this recommendation is implemented without careful consideration, we might be creating more problems than we can solve. The VA disability rating system is already stressed with its existing caseload. In this time of armed conflict when there are more injured servicemembers each day, it makes no sense to add more pressure to an already overburdened VA system, especially when there is no indication that VA would do a better job than DoD in making disability ratings. As long as there is consistency in how we determine what percentage of disability a servicemembers receives, it should not matter who makes the rating. Rather than shifting the focus to VA, I believe our focus should be on solving the problems of fairness and consistency for assigning disability ratings within and across the Services. To that end, the bill I am introducing addresses consistency of disability ratings within DoD, uniform use of the Veterans Affairs rating schedule across the military services, uniform training of Medical Evaluation Board/ Physical Evaluation Board personnel, and accountability by DoD to ensure compliance with disability rating regulations and policies. This legislation is a good first step towards changing the DoD Disability Evaluation System that needs to be reformed for the benefit of our wounded and seriously injured servicemembers. It will improve DoD-wide disability rating regulations and policies, and ensure consistency as these regulations and policies are applied across the Services. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in making these positive changes to the DoD Disability Evaluation System. We owe our injured and disabled servicemembers no less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would reform the Department of Defense Disability Evaluation System. This legislation offers common sense solutions to problems within the Disability Evaluation System that first gained public attention in connection with the stories about the conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Unfortunately, the problems with the Disability Evaluation System are not limited to the Army but exist throughout the military services. At an April 12, 2007, Joint Senate Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committee Hearing, we received testimony that identified problems with the current system. Examples of the issues identified were the failure to use the VA disability rating schedule in a consistent manner across the military services; the failure to include all, not just the most severe medical conditions that would render a servicemember unfit when making a disability decision; the lack of uniform training for Disability Evaluation System personnel; and the lack of accountability and supervision by DoD over the disability process. Some have suggested that the solution to the problems within the Disability Evaluation System is to radically change it. Under current DoD practice, a service-specific Physical Evaluation Board, PEB, makes a ``fitness'' for duty determination. If a servicemember is found to be unfit for continued service, the PEB then makes a disability decision. Instead of seeking ways to ensure that the system functions as intended, some have suggested that the military continue to make ``fitness'' determinations, but that the Department of Veterans Affairs would be responsible for making disability decisions for servicemembers found to be unfit. While this may appear to be a reasonable recommendation, I am concerned that if this recommendation is implemented without careful consideration, we might be creating more problems than we can solve. The VA disability rating system is already stressed with its existing caseload. In this time of armed conflict when there are more injured servicemembers each day, it makes no sense to add more pressure to an already overburdened VA system, especially when there is no indication that VA would do a better job than DoD in making disability ratings. As long as there is consistency in how we determine what percentage of disability a servicemembers receives, it should not matter who makes the rating. Rather than shifting the focus to VA, I believe our focus should be on solving the problems of fairness and consistency for assigning disability ratings within and across the Services. To that end, the bill I am introducing addresses consistency of disability ratings within DoD, uniform use of the Veterans Affairs rating schedule across the military services, uniform training of Medical Evaluation Board/ Physical Evaluation Board personnel, and accountability by DoD to ensure compliance with disability rating regulations and policies. This legislation is a good first step towards changing the DoD Disability Evaluation System that needs to be reformed for the benefit of our wounded and seriously injured servicemembers. It will improve DoD-wide disability rating regulations and policies, and ensure consistency as these regulations and policies are applied across the Services. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in making these positive changes to the DoD Disability Evaluation System. We owe our injured and disabled servicemembers no less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I, along with my good friend and ranking member, Senator Craig, introduce comprehensive legislation to improve the capacity of the Department of Veterans Affairs to care for veterans with traumatic brain injuries, otherwise referred to as TBI. TBI has become the signature wound of the Iraq war. Blast injuries account for over 60 percent of all combat wounds suffered by U.S. forces in Iraq. The brain can be harmed by the shock of an explosion, or by rattling or striking of the head as a consequence of the explosion. The high incidence of powerful explosive attacks means that potentially thousands of OIF/OEF veterans have incurred some form of brain damage or impairment. Many servicemembers who would have perished from their wounds in earlier conflicts are now saved by modern body armor and rapid medical evacuation. Although these individuals survive, many of them suffer brain damage in addition to other injuries. There must be new approaches to best meet the health care needs of these veterans. On March 27, 2007, I chaired a Committee on Veterans' Affairs hearing on VA's ability to deal with war injuries, including TBI. The provisions of this bill are a direct outgrowth of that hearing and the testimony given by those who suffer with TBI. This bill addresses the immediate needs of veterans with TBI for high-quality rehabilitation in their communities, and provides VA clinicians with increased resources to develop the expertise and capacity to meet the lifelong needs of these veterans. The bill has seven core provisions, and authorizes a total of $63 million over 6 years to support new TBI-related initiatives. While this amounts to significant new funding, every dollar was included in our Committee's Views and Estimates Letter to the Budget Committee, and was subsequently included in the Senate-passed Budget Resolution. I will highlight a few of the provisions of this legislation: First, VA health care providers would be required to develop a comprehensive rehabilitation and community reintegration plan for each veteran with TBI. A diverse team of VA health care providers would be required to review and refine the plan to adapt to the needs of the veteran. Giving an injured veteran or their caregiver an opportunity to request a review of the rehabilitation plan would ensure VA's responsiveness to the needs of these individuals. This provision stems directly from the hearing testimony of Denise Mettie, whose severely injured son Evan went for months without a coherent, well-thought-out rehabilitation plan. Second, as we heard from the story by ABC news anchor Bob Woodruff, who himself suffered a TBI, VA's four lead polytrauma centers have developed significant expertise in rehabilitative care, but most other VA facilities lack capacity for specialized TBI services. The bill would require VA to implement the individualized plan through outside providers in cases where VA is unable to provide the required intensity of care or the veteran lives too far away to make VA treatment feasible. This provision is inspired by the hearing testimony of Dr. Bruce Gans, who called for greater private sector involvement in veterans' rehabilitation in those cases where VA lacks capacity or geographic reach. Our goal is to ensure that VA care is the finest in the country. When VA cannot adequately serve veterans with TBI, community providers need to be utilized. Third, care for veterans with severe TBI often leads to nursing home care. This legislation would give VA providers, in collaboration with the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, the ability to conduct innovative research and treatment to ``re-awaken'' veterans with severe TBI, by making $15 million available for research and care over 5 years. Finally, the legislation makes available $48 million over 6 years for VA to maximize the independence, quality of life, and community reintegration of veterans with TBI who are unable to manage routine activities of daily living. These funds would be available for an assisted living pilot program for those with TBI, so that veterans who might otherwise be forced into institutional long-term care will instead have an opportunity to live in group homes or under other arrangements. The bill also requires special consideration for rural veteran participation in this pilot program. I urge all of my colleagues to support this innovative and comprehensive legislation, which will bring hope and progress to many brain injured veterans and their families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I, along with my good friend and ranking member, Senator Craig, introduce comprehensive legislation to improve the capacity of the Department of Veterans Affairs to care for veterans with traumatic brain injuries, otherwise referred to as TBI. TBI has become the signature wound of the Iraq war. Blast injuries account for over 60 percent of all combat wounds suffered by U.S. forces in Iraq. The brain can be harmed by the shock of an explosion, or by rattling or striking of the head as a consequence of the explosion. The high incidence of powerful explosive attacks means that potentially thousands of OIF/OEF veterans have incurred some form of brain damage or impairment. Many servicemembers who would have perished from their wounds in earlier conflicts are now saved by modern body armor and rapid medical evacuation. Although these individuals survive, many of them suffer brain damage in addition to other injuries. There must be new approaches to best meet the health care needs of these veterans. On March 27, 2007, I chaired a Committee on Veterans' Affairs hearing on VA's ability to deal with war injuries, including TBI. The provisions of this bill are a direct outgrowth of that hearing and the testimony given by those who suffer with TBI. This bill addresses the immediate needs of veterans with TBI for high-quality rehabilitation in their communities, and provides VA clinicians with increased resources to develop the expertise and capacity to meet the lifelong needs of these veterans. The bill has seven core provisions, and authorizes a total of $63 million over 6 years to support new TBI-related initiatives. While this amounts to significant new funding, every dollar was included in our Committee's Views and Estimates Letter to the Budget Committee, and was subsequently included in the Senate-passed Budget Resolution. I will highlight a few of the provisions of this legislation: First, VA health care providers would be required to develop a comprehensive rehabilitation and community reintegration plan for each veteran with TBI. A diverse team of VA health care providers would be required to review and refine the plan to adapt to the needs of the veteran. Giving an injured veteran or their caregiver an opportunity to request a review of the rehabilitation plan would ensure VA's responsiveness to the needs of these individuals. This provision stems directly from the hearing testimony of Denise Mettie, whose severely injured son Evan went for months without a coherent, well-thought-out rehabilitation plan. Second, as we heard from the story by ABC news anchor Bob Woodruff, who himself suffered a TBI, VA's four lead polytrauma centers have developed significant expertise in rehabilitative care, but most other VA facilities lack capacity for specialized TBI services. The bill would require VA to implement the individualized plan through outside providers in cases where VA is unable to provide the required intensity of care or the veteran lives too far away to make VA treatment feasible. This provision is inspired by the hearing testimony of Dr. Bruce Gans, who called for greater private sector involvement in veterans' rehabilitation in those cases where VA lacks capacity or geographic reach. Our goal is to ensure that VA care is the finest in the country. When VA cannot adequately serve veterans with TBI, community providers need to be utilized. Third, care for veterans with severe TBI often leads to nursing home care. This legislation would give VA providers, in collaboration with the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, the ability to conduct innovative research and treatment to ``re-awaken'' veterans with severe TBI, by making $15 million available for research and care over 5 years. Finally, the legislation makes available $48 million over 6 years for VA to maximize the independence, quality of life, and community reintegration of veterans with TBI who are unable to manage routine activities of daily living. These funds would be available for an assisted living pilot program for those with TBI, so that veterans who might otherwise be forced into institutional long-term care will instead have an opportunity to live in group homes or under other arrangements. The bill also requires special consideration for rural veteran participation in this pilot program. I urge all of my colleagues to support this innovative and comprehensive legislation, which will bring hope and progress to many brain injured veterans and their families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Brownback in introducing legislation establishing a wildlife global animal information network for detection of emerging, highly contagious diseases in non-agricultural animals. This bill is an important part of efforts to prevent and respond to natural or intentional pandemic disease outbreaks in the U.S. Our legislation focuses on the source of nearly all pandemic disease outbreaks over the last 30 years--zoonotic diseases, or diseases that originate in animals, either agricultural or non-agricultural, and, through mutation, are passed to humans. Avian influenza, West Nile Virus and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) are all zoonotic diseases originating in animals and subsequently transmitted to humans. The prevalence of such diseases underscores the need to link veterinary health and public health arenas. America's infrastructure for pandemic flu preparedness and response should therefore include the ability to monitor zoonotic diseases, creating an early warning and response system which will alert public health officials and animal health experts at the emergence of highly contagious diseases before they are passed to humans. The global animal information network for surveillance proposed in this bill has its roots in the activities of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to assist countries dealing with the most recent outbreak of the H5N1 strain of avian influenza. In close cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Departments of State, Defense, Agriculture, Homeland Security and the Wildlife Conservation Society, USAID is providing assistance to those countries most hard hit by avian influenza. To date, animal outbreaks have been reported in 55 countries, and 12 countries have had confirmed human cases. A total of 291 humans have been infected, resulting in 172 deaths. This translates into a case fatality rate of roughly 60 percent. To date, USAID has committed a total of $192 million for avian influenza assistance activities in these countries for preparedness and response. The goal of its activities is to lower the amount of circulating virus and limiting the opportunity for people to become infected with avian flu. Despite these efforts, many of which have demonstrated the effectiveness of interventions being used to control the spread of avian flu, this zoonotic disease continues to mutate and as such, persist as a threat, both to animals and to people. The animal surveillance network being proposed in this bill is one critical tool to detect other wildlife-based emergent contagious diseases before they impact humans and agricultural animals. While detecting and preventing these highly contagious diseases is critical for human health and economic stability, I would like to emphasize that, as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) observed in a 2000 report entitled ``West Nile Virus Outbreak: Lessons for Public Health Preparedness'', on the West Nile Virus outbreak in New York City, ``Because a bioterrorist event could look like a natural outbreak, bioterrorism preparedness rests in large part on public health preparedness.'' Creating early warning tools such as this one can aid efforts to protect the U.S. from natural outbreaks and deliberate bioterrorist attacks. While the network alone does not protect us, it does contribute to the mosaic of homeland security activities designed to protect Americans, and those in other countries most vulnerable to bioterrorist attacks. It is for this reason that I am pleased to join Senators Lieberman and Brownback in introducing this bill and urge its support.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we are now in our fifth year of this conflict in Iraq, and throughout that time I have met with commanders of our Armed Forces, listened to their experiences and recommendations, and after much consideration I have come to the conclusion that we are not on the right path. While some of my colleagues believe that we should support President George W. Bush, who continues to make decisions that place our men and women in the Armed Forces in harm's way, I disagree. The past few months have been among the deadliest for our military personnel. We have seen 79 U.S. soldiers killed in February, 82 in March, and 85 so far this month. To the more than 3,300 U.S. soldiers that have been killed and the over 24,000 wounded since the conflict began, to our men and women in the Armed Forces and their families who are valiantly serving our country and to the American people, I say to all of you, we must change our course. To stay the course is to welcome disaster. Iraq lies like the proverbial clay pot broken in shards on the ground. It is shattered into the fragments of warring factions, clans, and religious groups. Afghanistan, still the center of the war on al-Qaida, is becoming progressively more dangerous as our attention remains focused on Iraq. Al-Qaida and the Taliban are rebuilding their forces and terrorists have extended their attacks to North Africa and Western Europe. We are facing, as our military leaders tells us again and again, a ``thinking enemy,'' one that learns and adapts. Should we not also learn and adapt? Can anyone doubt that our strategy needs to change? Some have painted this conflict as simply a war against al-Qaida in Iraq. Let us not make the mistake of fooling ourselves. Al-Qaida is stoking the flames but it is the internal divisions among the Iraqis themselves which has made it the bonfire it is today. If the Iraqis unite, they can defeat al-Qaida as they have demonstrated in some provinces already. But as everyone, including the President and our military leaders, have observed, the Iraqis themselves must form a reconciliation government. American soldiers are not a thread that can permanently stitch together the broken parts of Iraq. The Iraqis themselves are the masters of their own fate. The legislation before us today is a call for a new strategy. It requires that we change our present course. It makes clear that the war in Iraq can only be won by Iraqis. It is their will and their will alone that must determine the fate of their country. Americans cannot do the fighting for them. A democratic Iraq will not be established unless the Iraqis do it for themselves. We cannot put the shattered pieces of Iraq together. Only the Iraqis can do that. Today, with the Senate passage of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, we will be providing $100 billion for the Department of Defense, primarily for continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also includes a $1 billion increase for the National Guard and Reserve equipment and $1.1 billion for military housing. Mr. President, $1.789 billion would be provided for the Department of Veterans Affairs to specifically target treatment for veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, reduce the backlog of benefit claims, and ensure that facilities are maintained at the highest level. In addition, $6.9 billion would be appropriated for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, $650 million would be provided for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, $2.25 billion in homeland security investments, including funds for port security and mass transit security, and $3.5 billion to help relieve pressures that farmers and ranchers experienced due to severe drought and agricultural disasters. In addition to funding these important efforts, the legislation includes an important step in setting the proper course in Iraq for our military servicemembers and their families by providing them with a road map to success. By outlining the benchmarks that must be met by the Iraqi government and clarifies our military involvement in Iraq. It defines our mission in Iraq by steering our military away from policing a civil war to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counterterror operations. A phased redeployment of our troops would begin no later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of removing all combat forces by April 1, 2008, except for those carrying out security, training, and counterterror operations. This bill holds the Iraqi government accountable by setting benchmarks that must be met for security, political reconciliation, and improving the lives of the Iraqi people. It is no longer acceptable for this Administration to set arbitrary benchmarks that have no consequences attached to it. It is time for the Iraqi government and regional leaders to work together to promote democracy in Iraq. It is time for the United States to take the necessary steps that illustrates our willingness to relinquish control and allow the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to control their own destiny. And it is time for the Iraqi people to set their own path to victory and democracy. The American people and more importantly, our servicemembers and their families, deserve to have the administration define our mission in Iraq. The President must also give a clear directive to the Iraqi government that it must demonstrate the will to overcome the civil unrest that is taking control of their country. Unfortunately, the President has indicated that he will veto this important legislation. By vetoing this legislation, this administration is sending the wrong message. It is preventing our troops from receiving the funds they need to continue their mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is preventing victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita from rebuilding their lives and farmers and ranchers from receiving relief due to severe drought and agricultural disasters. Moreover, it is preventing our veterans from receiving the health care and benefits that they deserve. It is time for this administration, this President, to lead us out of the morass in Iraq. This legislation sends the right message to our servicemembers, to the Iraqi government and its people, and to the American people. I urge the President to do the right thing and enact H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Mr. Salazar. Mr. President, today I will vote for the Iraq- Afghanistan emergency supplemental bill. I believe that this bill supports our troops, our veterans and their families, and should be signed by the President. But first I would like to say that as we continue the debate on this legislation and on the best way forward in Iraq, I come to the floor today with two key principles in mind. One, we should honor the bravery and courage of our troops. America's finest men and women have done an extraordinary job--too often without the needed equipment and support. But honoring our troops means more than just singing their praise. It means making sure that every American in Iraq is adequately trained and equipped; it means guaranteeing every veteran access to all available benefits and services; and it means setting a policy that is as wise as our soldiers are brave. And two, we should work to heal the deep divisions which this war has caused at home. Not since Vietnam has the American public been so divided. I am concerned that the bitterness and the harshness of the debate clouds good judgment on the future direction in Iraq. It is important for us to remember that, no matter how contentious this debate may become, every Senator shares the same goal: peace and stability in the Middle East and a safe return home for our troops. While we may disagree on the best path to that end, we must continue to work together for a constructive change in our policy. It is important to remember what binds us together--so that we will not be torn too far apart. I would now like to comment on the bill before us today. Specifically, the bill includes: More than $100 billion for our troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan; more than $5 billion to help ensure that our veterans and their families can receive the health care they need and deserve when they return home; nearly $7 billion to rebuild the gulf coast and help the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita so that they can finally rebuild their homes, communities and livelihoods; and $3.5 billion in disaster assistance to help our farmers and ranchers across the Nation recover from 7 years of drought capped by this winter's devastating blizzards. The bill sends a direct message to the Iraqis that our military commitment is not open-ended. We hold the Iraqi government accountable through measurable and achievable benchmarks for security, political reconciliation and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis. The bill also launches a new diplomatic, economic and political offensive and takes steps to begin to rebuild our military. Finally, it sets an April, 1, 2008, goal of redeploying U.S. troops not engaged in carrying out security, training and counterterror operations in Iraq. I support this new direction for Iraq. This new direction recognizes the reality that success in Iraq is contingent upon a strategy of military, political and diplomatic progress. I am disappointed that the President has said he intends to veto this legislation. But I remain hopeful. I believe that we must continue to seek a new course in Iraq. I believe we can and should do that by achieving a bipartisan consensus on the best path to success. I know most of my Republican colleagues do not support this bill. But I believe they sincerely want to join in finding a solution to the difficult problem that confronts us in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group provides a model for how we can work in good faith, across party lines. And I believe that the group's recommendations can and should be our blueprint for a compromise that can gain broad support here in the Senate. So next week, I will be back on the floor to discuss with my colleagues how we can implement those recommendations, working with the President.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Brownback in introducing legislation establishing a wildlife global animal information network for detection of emerging, highly contagious diseases in non-agricultural animals. This bill is an important part of efforts to prevent and respond to natural or intentional pandemic disease outbreaks in the U.S. Our legislation focuses on the source of nearly all pandemic disease outbreaks over the last 30 years--zoonotic diseases, or diseases that originate in animals, either agricultural or non-agricultural, and, through mutation, are passed to humans. Avian influenza, West Nile Virus and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) are all zoonotic diseases originating in animals and subsequently transmitted to humans. The prevalence of such diseases underscores the need to link veterinary health and public health arenas. America's infrastructure for pandemic flu preparedness and response should therefore include the ability to monitor zoonotic diseases, creating an early warning and response system which will alert public health officials and animal health experts at the emergence of highly contagious diseases before they are passed to humans. The global animal information network for surveillance proposed in this bill has its roots in the activities of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to assist countries dealing with the most recent outbreak of the H5N1 strain of avian influenza. In close cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Departments of State, Defense, Agriculture, Homeland Security and the Wildlife Conservation Society, USAID is providing assistance to those countries most hard hit by avian influenza. To date, animal outbreaks have been reported in 55 countries, and 12 countries have had confirmed human cases. A total of 291 humans have been infected, resulting in 172 deaths. This translates into a case fatality rate of roughly 60 percent. To date, USAID has committed a total of $192 million for avian influenza assistance activities in these countries for preparedness and response. The goal of its activities is to lower the amount of circulating virus and limiting the opportunity for people to become infected with avian flu. Despite these efforts, many of which have demonstrated the effectiveness of interventions being used to control the spread of avian flu, this zoonotic disease continues to mutate and as such, persist as a threat, both to animals and to people. The animal surveillance network being proposed in this bill is one critical tool to detect other wildlife-based emergent contagious diseases before they impact humans and agricultural animals. While detecting and preventing these highly contagious diseases is critical for human health and economic stability, I would like to emphasize that, as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) observed in a 2000 report entitled ``West Nile Virus Outbreak: Lessons for Public Health Preparedness'', on the West Nile Virus outbreak in New York City, ``Because a bioterrorist event could look like a natural outbreak, bioterrorism preparedness rests in large part on public health preparedness.'' Creating early warning tools such as this one can aid efforts to protect the U.S. from natural outbreaks and deliberate bioterrorist attacks. While the network alone does not protect us, it does contribute to the mosaic of homeland security activities designed to protect Americans, and those in other countries most vulnerable to bioterrorist attacks. It is for this reason that I am pleased to join Senators Lieberman and Brownback in introducing this bill and urge its support.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I wish to update our colleagues on an important issue that the Veterans' Affairs Committee is dealing with; namely, providing long overdue recognition to all those veterans of the Philippines Armed Forces who served under U.S. command during the Second World War. Recently, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to chair, held a hearing on S. 57, the Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007. This important legislation, introduced by my good friend and senior Senator, Mr. Inouye, would end more than 50 years of inequality for Filipino veterans who have served our country, and it has my strong support. During our hearing, the committee received testimony from Filipino veterans who spoke of their service under U.S. military command and their difficulties with a VA system that doesn't recognize them as veterans. Until 1946, the Philippines was not completely independent from the United States. When America entered the Second World War, the Filipino military was a part of the U.S. Armed Forces, under the command of the U.S. Armed Forces of the Far East. All military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines were ordered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to serve under the command of the U.S. military, and they served bravely, fighting for our country and their freedom. In 1946, Congress limited veterans' benefits to only a portion of Filipinos who served in World War II. While some of the inequity has been corrected in recent years, this injustice still remains. Filipino veterans of the U.S. military do not have equal access to the health care and benefits they have earned through service. S. 57 would end the inequity and give Filipino veterans who fought under the command of U.S. military the benefits and care they earned. Some who oppose S. 57 say we cannot afford it. While I, too, am concerned about costs, I am committed to finding offsets to cover the expense. After all, fiscal responsibility is not the only kind of responsibility there is. Our country has a deeper responsibility to the men and women who have served in our military, whether they were born in America or the Philippines. We need a solution that is both morally responsible to Filipino veterans and fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars. Many of the brothers-in-arms of those who testified at our hearing have since passed away, never having been recognized by the United States for their service. I find that shameful. Following the hearing, I asked myself how we could stray from our moral commitment to these men for over half a century and then argue that it is too expensive to give those who are left the benefits they have earned. With that in mind, let us look to fulfill both responsibilities, rather than neglecting the Filipino veterans who remain with us today. We have gone down that path for over half of a century, denying them care and benefits. Today we find many Filipino veterans living their twilight years in the pain of poverty, without access to the relief available to other veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces. Allowing this to go on without searching vigorously for a realistic solution is not the responsible response. These veterans deserve better.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act. I thank Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Schumer for cosponsoring this legislation. Too many consumers in our country are burdened by significant credit card debt. Revolving debt, mostly comprised of credit card debt, has risen from $54 billion in 1980 to more than $883 billion in 2007. We must make consumers more aware of the long-term effects of their financial decisions, particularly in managing credit card debt. While it is relatively easy to obtain credit, especially on college campuses, not enough is being done to ensure that credit is properly managed. Currently, credit card statements fail to include vital information that would allow individuals to make fully informed financial decisions. Additional disclosure is needed to ensure that consumers completely understand the implications of their credit card use and the costs of only making the minimum payments. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 included a requirement that credit card issuers provide information to consumers about the consequences of only making the minimum monthly payment. However, this requirement fails to provide the detailed information on billing statements that consumers need to know to make informed decisions. The bankruptcy law allows credit card issuers a choice between disclosure statements. The first option included in the bankruptcy bill would require a standard ``Minimum Payment Warning.'' The generic warning would state that it would take 88 months to pay off a balance of $1,000 for bank card holders or 24 months to pay off a balance of $300 for retail card holders. This first option also includes a requirement that a toll-free number be established that would provide an estimate of the time it would take to pay off the customer's balance. The Federal Reserve Board is required to establish the table that would estimate the approximate number of months it would take to pay off a variety of account balances. There is a second option that the law permits. The second option allows the credit card issuer to provide a general minimum payment warning and provide a toll-free number that consumers could call for the actual number of months to repay the outstanding balance. The options available under the Bankruptcy Reform law are woefully inadequate. They do not require issuers to provide their customers with the total amount they would pay in interest and principal if they chose to pay off their balance at the minimum rate. Since the average household with debt carries a balance of approximately $10,000 to $12,000 in revolving debt, a warning based on a balance of $1,000 will not be helpful. The minimum payment warning included in the first option underestimates the costs of paying a balance off at the minimum payment. If a family has a credit card debt of $10,000, and the interest rate is a modest 12.4 percent, it would take more than ten and a half years to pay off the balance while making minimum monthly payments of four percent. My legislation would make it very clear what costs consumers will incur if they make only the minimum payments on their credit cards. If the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act is enacted, the personalized information consumers would receive for their accounts would help them make informed choices about their payments toward reducing outstanding debt. My bill requires a minimum payment warning notification on monthly statements stating that making the minimum payment will increase the amount of interest that will be paid and extend the amount of time it will take to repay the outstanding balance. The legislation also requires companies to inform consumers of how many years and months it will take to repay their entire balance if they make only minimum payments. In addition, the total cost in interest and principal, if the consumer pays only the minimum payment, would have to be disclosed. These provisions will make individuals much more aware of the true costs of their credit card debt. The bill also requires that credit card companies provide useful information so that people can develop strategies to free themselves of credit card debt. Consumers would have to be provided with the amount they need to pay to eliminate their outstanding balance within 36 months. Finally, the legislation requires that creditors establish a toll- free number so that consumers can access trustworthy credit counselors. In order to ensure that consumers are referred only to trustworthy credit counseling organizations, these agencies would have to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board as having met comprehensive quality standards. These standards are necessary because certain credit counseling agencies have abused their nonprofit, tax-exempt status and taken advantage of people seeking assistance in managing their debt. In a report on customized minimum payment disclosures released in April 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that consumers who typically carry credit balances found customized disclosures very useful and would prefer to receive them in their billing statements. We must provide consumers with detailed personalized information to assist them in making better informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. Our bill makes clear the adverse consequences of uninformed choices, such as making only minimum payments, and provides opportunities to locate assistance to better manage credit card debt. My bill is necessary to improve credit card disclosures so that consumers are provided relevant and useful information that hopefully will bring about positive behavior change among consumers. Consumers with lower debt levels will be better able to purchase a home, pay for their child's education, or retire comfortably on their own terms. I will ask that a letter of support from the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Action, Consumers Union, Demos, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the National Council of La Raza, and the National Consumer Law Center be printed in the Record. I will also ask that the text of the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that will empower consumers by providing them with detailed personalized information to assist them in making informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. This bill makes clear the adverse consequences of uninformed choices such as making only minimum payments and provides opportunities to locate assistance to reduce credit card debt. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act. I thank Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Schumer for cosponsoring this legislation. Too many consumers in our country are burdened by significant credit card debt. Revolving debt, mostly comprised of credit card debt, has risen from $54 billion in 1980 to more than $883 billion in 2007. We must make consumers more aware of the long-term effects of their financial decisions, particularly in managing credit card debt. While it is relatively easy to obtain credit, especially on college campuses, not enough is being done to ensure that credit is properly managed. Currently, credit card statements fail to include vital information that would allow individuals to make fully informed financial decisions. Additional disclosure is needed to ensure that consumers completely understand the implications of their credit card use and the costs of only making the minimum payments. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 included a requirement that credit card issuers provide information to consumers about the consequences of only making the minimum monthly payment. However, this requirement fails to provide the detailed information on billing statements that consumers need to know to make informed decisions. The bankruptcy law allows credit card issuers a choice between disclosure statements. The first option included in the bankruptcy bill would require a standard ``Minimum Payment Warning.'' The generic warning would state that it would take 88 months to pay off a balance of $1,000 for bank card holders or 24 months to pay off a balance of $300 for retail card holders. This first option also includes a requirement that a toll-free number be established that would provide an estimate of the time it would take to pay off the customer's balance. The Federal Reserve Board is required to establish the table that would estimate the approximate number of months it would take to pay off a variety of account balances. There is a second option that the law permits. The second option allows the credit card issuer to provide a general minimum payment warning and provide a toll-free number that consumers could call for the actual number of months to repay the outstanding balance. The options available under the Bankruptcy Reform law are woefully inadequate. They do not require issuers to provide their customers with the total amount they would pay in interest and principal if they chose to pay off their balance at the minimum rate. Since the average household with debt carries a balance of approximately $10,000 to $12,000 in revolving debt, a warning based on a balance of $1,000 will not be helpful. The minimum payment warning included in the first option underestimates the costs of paying a balance off at the minimum payment. If a family has a credit card debt of $10,000, and the interest rate is a modest 12.4 percent, it would take more than ten and a half years to pay off the balance while making minimum monthly payments of four percent. My legislation would make it very clear what costs consumers will incur if they make only the minimum payments on their credit cards. If the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act is enacted, the personalized information consumers would receive for their accounts would help them make informed choices about their payments toward reducing outstanding debt. My bill requires a minimum payment warning notification on monthly statements stating that making the minimum payment will increase the amount of interest that will be paid and extend the amount of time it will take to repay the outstanding balance. The legislation also requires companies to inform consumers of how many years and months it will take to repay their entire balance if they make only minimum payments. In addition, the total cost in interest and principal, if the consumer pays only the minimum payment, would have to be disclosed. These provisions will make individuals much more aware of the true costs of their credit card debt. The bill also requires that credit card companies provide useful information so that people can develop strategies to free themselves of credit card debt. Consumers would have to be provided with the amount they need to pay to eliminate their outstanding balance within 36 months. Finally, the legislation requires that creditors establish a toll- free number so that consumers can access trustworthy credit counselors. In order to ensure that consumers are referred only to trustworthy credit counseling organizations, these agencies would have to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board as having met comprehensive quality standards. These standards are necessary because certain credit counseling agencies have abused their nonprofit, tax-exempt status and taken advantage of people seeking assistance in managing their debt. In a report on customized minimum payment disclosures released in April 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that consumers who typically carry credit balances found customized disclosures very useful and would prefer to receive them in their billing statements. We must provide consumers with detailed personalized information to assist them in making better informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. Our bill makes clear the adverse consequences of uninformed choices, such as making only minimum payments, and provides opportunities to locate assistance to better manage credit card debt. My bill is necessary to improve credit card disclosures so that consumers are provided relevant and useful information that hopefully will bring about positive behavior change among consumers. Consumers with lower debt levels will be better able to purchase a home, pay for their child's education, or retire comfortably on their own terms. I will ask that a letter of support from the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Action, Consumers Union, Demos, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the National Council of La Raza, and the National Consumer Law Center be printed in the Record. I will also ask that the text of the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that will empower consumers by providing them with detailed personalized information to assist them in making informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. This bill makes clear the adverse consequences of uninformed choices such as making only minimum payments and provides opportunities to locate assistance to reduce credit card debt. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I wish to make a few remarks regarding commemoration of World Health Day by the World Health Organization, WHO. On Saturday, April 7, 2007, WHO again commemorated its 1948 founding with the annual World Health Day. This year's theme is international health security. In the words of WHO, ``Threats to health know no borders.'' Globalization, characterized by increased mobility of populations and the emergence of new, highly contagious diseases, make us increasingly vulnerable to pandemics and other health crises. Diseases such as highly pathogenic avian influenza, or ``bird flu,'' severe acute respiratory syndrome, or ``SARS,'' have entered our public health and security vocabulary. They are worthy of serious study, focus, and action. The spread of these and other virulent diseases and the potentially cataclysmic impact of a pandemic on countries around the world and here in the United States reminds us all of the critical need for adequate preparedness and continued awareness of threats to the health and well-being of Americans and people around the world. We need a strategy to handle a pandemic flu outbreak, one that includes a multilayered and multinational approach to detecting and isolating viruses before they can spread. At my request, the Government Accountability Office has undertaken several investigations into how best to prepare for a possible pandemic flu outbreak. The first line of protection should be to deploy overseas public health specialists and veterinarians to detect a virus in its early stages. We need to provide more international assistance to countries least able to defend themselves. At the same time, DHS should develop sophisticated response plans to maintain critical services, such as water, power, transportation, and medical and financial services, in the event a pandemic forces the Nation to adopt a quarantine strategy. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, CDC, has established a global disease protection program, and DHS has created a new Office of Health Affairs that will bring together medical readiness and biological defense activities, including BioWatch. However, I remain concerned about the level of coordination between these and other domestic actors regarding pandemic planning. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia under the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, I hope to address this and other issues related to pandemic planning and response so that the United States is prepared for any natural or manmade attack, including a pandemic flu. The mutation of avian influenza, a zoonotic disease that originated in birds but has since been transmitted to humans, is a high-profile reminder that we cannot cease our efforts to prepare for and respond to health crises. Since the H5N1 strain of bird flu was first detected in 1997, the threat has not abated. Of the 291 confirmed cases of bird flu reported to the WHO since that time, more than half, 171, have resulted in death. While these numbers may not seem large or significant, they are a warning signal that avian flu has mutated and continues to spread. As it does, it adapts and can become even more deadly. In our interdependent and highly mobile world, we are never immune and, as such, we cannot be complacent. For example, my home State of Hawaii lies at the crossroads between Asia and the continental United States. Nearly 2 million people visit Hawaii every year from Asia. Given the large number of confirmed cases of avian influenza in Asia, it is easy to understand why Hawaii continues to take bird flu and pandemic planning very seriously. Unfortunately, this disease shows no signs of abating. According to the World Health Organization, just this month, the Cambodian Ministry of Health confirmed the country's seventh case of human infection with the H5N1 avian influenza virus. It is the first case to be confirmed in humans in Cambodia in 2007. On April 7, avian flu claimed the life of a 74th victim in Indonesia, while on April 11, Egypt confirmed the death of a l5-year-old girl in Cairo, its 14th victim from avian flu. But we must also remember that pandemic flu is not the only risk to human health. To coincide with World Health Day 2007, the WHO released a report entitled ``Invest in Health, Build a Safer Future.'' In it, the WHO lists eight key issues linked to international health security. Highly contagious diseases is certainly one of those issues, but also included are the threat of chemical, radioactive, and biological terror threats, the threat of public health dangers on economic stability, and building health security, to include a framework for collaboration laid out by the International Health Regulations, IHRs, and a number of surveillance networks that can provide an early-warning and response system. I commend the WHO for its ongoing efforts to raise awareness of the need to work toward international health security and to continue to address the threat of highly contagious disease, chemical, biological, and radiological terrorism, and the economic impact of pandemic disease. Global health is no longer just a matter of ensuring the vitality, economic stability, and environments of the United States and countries around the world. It is about security. It is about homeland security. In commemorating World Health Day 2007, WHO Director General Margaret Chan put a fine point on this notion by stating that, ``A foreign agent that invades a sovereign territory, evades detection, kills civilians and disrupts the economy is a security threat by most definitions . . . . The best defense against emerging and epidemic- prone diseases is not passive barriers at borders, airports and seaports. It is proactive risk management that seeks to detect an outbreak early and stop it at its source.'' Through a continuing focus on an all-hazards approach, a more comprehensive approach to defending our homeland, we can help mitigate the universal vulnerability the United States and other countries face against large-scale health catastrophes.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act of 2007. This legislation would update the eligibility requirements for certain benefits provided to veterans with a service- connected disability due to blindness. It addresses two areas of veterans' law that heretofore excluded many veterans with severe vision impairment from accessing benefits that could significantly improve the quality of their lives. At a time when great changes are afoot in how this Nation prioritizes the care of its veterans, it is still important that we also remain attentive to the places where small changes can make a large impact. Several of my colleagues, including Senators Brown, Feingold, Hagel, Isakson, and Webb, join me in introducing this legislation. This bill would relax the criteria for vision impairment in two separate areas of veterans' benefits law. The first governs eligibility for disability compensation under what is known as the ``paired organ law.'' The second relates to the criteria for blinded veterans seeking VA grants for specially adapted housing. The paired organ law provides veterans who sustain a service- connected injury loss of function in one of their coupled organs, eyes, kidneys, ears, lungs, hands, and feet, with eligibility for additional compensation should they sustain a non-service-connected injury or loss of function in the companion organ. With respect to vision, VA currently requires veterans to demonstrate a visual acuity of less than 5/200 in the non-service-connected eye in order to receive compensation for full service-connected blindness. However, this requires veterans to demonstrate more severe visual impairment to qualify for benefits than if the standard definition of blindness were used by VA. The standard definition, accepted by the American Medical Association, the Social Security Administration, and the motor vehicle license laws of all 50 States, is a visual acuity of 20/200 or less, or a peripheral field of vision of 20 degrees or less. This difference in standards was initially brought to the attention of Representative Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin several years ago by Dr. James Allen, a veteran of the Korean War and a long-time ophthalmologist at the Madison VA hospital. Representative Baldwin subsequently engaged in a long fight on behalf of blinded veterans, ultimately securing passage of a bill this March which would change existing law. I would like to thank Representative Baldwin and Dr. Allen for their hard work on behalf of veterans who are struggling with vision impairment as a result of their service and I am proud to join them in their efforts through introduction of this companion bill. With respect to VA grants for specially adapted housing for blinded veterans, VA disburses grants of up to $10,000 to veterans with a service-connected disability due to blindness in both eyes for the purpose of adapting their homes to accommodate their disability. However, as with the paired organ statute, current law requires that veterans have a visual acuity of 5/200 or less in order to be eligible for these grants. This legislation would correct this standard as well, making specially adapted housing grants available to veterans with a visual acuity of 20/200 or less, or a peripheral field of vison of 20 degrees or less. This legislation is particularly important at this moment when so many of the men and women in our Armed Forces are deployed overseas in combat zones. Traumatic brain injury is frequently described as the ``signature wound'' of the conflict in Iraq and it is frequently accompanied by damage to the veteran's vision. Thus, there are numerous veterans recovering from battle wounds right now who can benefit from this legislation both in the immediate future and down the road. Some who have suffered severe vision impairment will be able to speed their readjustment by adapting their homes to accommodate the disability. And those who have suffered blindness in one eye will be assured that they are provided for in the event that they lose sight in the other eye. With more and more servicemembers deployed in combat zones everyday, we are constantly reminded of the great sacrifice they make for this Nation. We owe it to them, at the very least, to ensure that they are not required to shoulder an undue burden when it comes to qualifying for veterans' benefits. Thus, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this important legislation on behalf of blinded veterans.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act of 2007. This legislation would update the eligibility requirements for certain benefits provided to veterans with a service- connected disability due to blindness. It addresses two areas of veterans' law that heretofore excluded many veterans with severe vision impairment from accessing benefits that could significantly improve the quality of their lives. At a time when great changes are afoot in how this Nation prioritizes the care of its veterans, it is still important that we also remain attentive to the places where small changes can make a large impact. Several of my colleagues, including Senators Brown, Feingold, Hagel, Isakson, and Webb, join me in introducing this legislation. This bill would relax the criteria for vision impairment in two separate areas of veterans' benefits law. The first governs eligibility for disability compensation under what is known as the ``paired organ law.'' The second relates to the criteria for blinded veterans seeking VA grants for specially adapted housing. The paired organ law provides veterans who sustain a service- connected injury loss of function in one of their coupled organs, eyes, kidneys, ears, lungs, hands, and feet, with eligibility for additional compensation should they sustain a non-service-connected injury or loss of function in the companion organ. With respect to vision, VA currently requires veterans to demonstrate a visual acuity of less than 5/200 in the non-service-connected eye in order to receive compensation for full service-connected blindness. However, this requires veterans to demonstrate more severe visual impairment to qualify for benefits than if the standard definition of blindness were used by VA. The standard definition, accepted by the American Medical Association, the Social Security Administration, and the motor vehicle license laws of all 50 States, is a visual acuity of 20/200 or less, or a peripheral field of vision of 20 degrees or less. This difference in standards was initially brought to the attention of Representative Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin several years ago by Dr. James Allen, a veteran of the Korean War and a long-time ophthalmologist at the Madison VA hospital. Representative Baldwin subsequently engaged in a long fight on behalf of blinded veterans, ultimately securing passage of a bill this March which would change existing law. I would like to thank Representative Baldwin and Dr. Allen for their hard work on behalf of veterans who are struggling with vision impairment as a result of their service and I am proud to join them in their efforts through introduction of this companion bill. With respect to VA grants for specially adapted housing for blinded veterans, VA disburses grants of up to $10,000 to veterans with a service-connected disability due to blindness in both eyes for the purpose of adapting their homes to accommodate their disability. However, as with the paired organ statute, current law requires that veterans have a visual acuity of 5/200 or less in order to be eligible for these grants. This legislation would correct this standard as well, making specially adapted housing grants available to veterans with a visual acuity of 20/200 or less, or a peripheral field of vison of 20 degrees or less. This legislation is particularly important at this moment when so many of the men and women in our Armed Forces are deployed overseas in combat zones. Traumatic brain injury is frequently described as the ``signature wound'' of the conflict in Iraq and it is frequently accompanied by damage to the veteran's vision. Thus, there are numerous veterans recovering from battle wounds right now who can benefit from this legislation both in the immediate future and down the road. Some who have suffered severe vision impairment will be able to speed their readjustment by adapting their homes to accommodate the disability. And those who have suffered blindness in one eye will be assured that they are provided for in the event that they lose sight in the other eye. With more and more servicemembers deployed in combat zones everyday, we are constantly reminded of the great sacrifice they make for this Nation. We owe it to them, at the very least, to ensure that they are not required to shoulder an undue burden when it comes to qualifying for veterans' benefits. Thus, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this important legislation on behalf of blinded veterans.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, when I began my chairmanship of the Veterans' Affairs committee this January, I assured my colleagues that we would renew our focus on the need for cooperation and collaboration between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. As we look at the way these two entities work together, it is important that we highlight the good work and progress being made. One example of progress and excellence in collaboration can be found at the Army Medical Department Center and School, located at Fort Sam Houston, which trains Army, Air Force, and VA nurses. This year, U.S. News and World Report ranked the Army Medical Department Center and School second in the Nation for their anesthesia nursing program. They missed first place by just a tenth of one point, and have improved their score from 3.8 out of 5.0 in 2003, to 4.0 out of 5.0 in 2007. This notable achievement brings added credibility to their already prestigious program. Since 2004, VA and DOD have partnered to train VA nurse anaesthetists to work in the VA health care system, the largest health care system in the country. The first class of VA nurse anesthetists recently graduated from the Army Medical Department Center and School. Their graduation represents what I hope will be a steady flow of highly qualified VA nurse anesthetists using their skills and knowledge to give veterans the high-quality health care they have earned through service. I realize that, with the private sector offering six-figure salaries for nurse anesthetists, those who chose to work within the military and VA do so not for personal gain. They stay to respond to the higher calling of caring for servicemembers and veterans in their times of need, and are to be commended for their dedication and their work. In that spirit, I say `e ho'omaika'i ia'oukou, or congratulations, to the graduates, students, faculty, staff, and others who have worked to make the Army Medical Department Center and School the success that it is today.