Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for entering into this colloquy, and, again, I thank Senators Murray and Shelby, and also Senator Dorgan, who has been working hard on the Commerce Committee. I also thank Senator Fritz Hollings, who, at my request in the Commerce Committee, did hold a hearing on this issue of NAFTA trucks. It was an eye-opener for us all. When you hear an inspector general talk about how a lot of these trucks don't have any brakes and they are trying to get into our country, that is a very frightening thought. In conclusion, for those people who are free trade advocates--and my record on trade is I am for fair trade, which leads me to sometimes support trade agreements and sometimes not to. But for those who say ``free trade at any price,'' let me tell you this is too high a price to pay. If you want to deal a blow to free trade, work against the Murray-Shelby amendment. If you work against that language in this bill, and we have a situation where this President can open up this border and we start to have a series of tragic accidents, I will tell you, that will be the biggest setback for free trade. You really want to advance free and fair trade and support this decal language in the amendment pending and support the language in the underlying bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise in support of the Murray amendment that is pending, as well as the underlying bill. I think Senator Murray deserves to be commended because she has taken on what is a huge safety issue for the people of our country, and she has done it in a way that has been open and transparent and she has listened. I think with the additional amendment that she has at the desk right now--which really, in a sense, adopts a procedure we are using in California to inspect trucks to give them a decal so we know they are safe--adds immeasurably to her language that is already in the underlying bill. I think the subject of NAFTA trucks is a very big issue because it isn't a theoretical issue anymore. It is a question of whether these trucks are safe. The Commerce Committee just held a hearing on the coming of the NAFTA trucks through the Mexican border. I am a member of the Commerce Committee, and I will tell you right now, from a lot of hearings, I am relieved that the problem I am looking at is actually not as bad as I thought. In this case, I was far from relieved. It is much more worrisome, after having heard the testimony of Cabinet Secretary Mineta and the inspector general of the Department of Transportation. The issue of the safety of what I call the NAFTA trucks is not about free trade, nor is it about protectionism. I know that Senator Murray, who is shepherding this bill through and who is now presiding over the Chamber, is a tremendous advocate of free trade. I think back. I can't truly think of a time when she didn't come down on that side. She is taking the leadership on the safety question. That is really what it is. That is the bottom line. Why should the Senator from California be concerned about this border truck issue? Clearly, my State has about 23 percent of all the NAFTA truck traffic. If it turns out that the trucks coming in are not safe, it is going to have a devastating effect on the people of California. That is something that is of great concern to me. In 1999, there were 4.5 million commercial motor vehicles crossing at the California-Mexico border. It is estimated that most of these crosses were made by 80,000 trucks. The opening of the border is expected to increase the number of NAFTA trucks. For example, we have 190 applications awaiting full access to our highways at the DOT. Unless our safety standards are improved and--this is really the big word--``enforced,'' the result will be that Californians, whether driving to work, or a soccer mom driving her kids, or whoever happens to be in that motor vehicle, will be next to a truck that may not meet our standards or that may have a driver who is exhausted. I will explain why that is apt to be the case. If I went along with the Bush administration, I would be putting those people at risk. There is nothing more sacred to an elected official than protecting the health and safety of the people he or she represents. This issue is very important to me. I want to show you a chart, which I will summarize. It will be very hard for the Presiding Officer to identify it from there. I will explain why the issue of NAFTA trucks is so important. When former Congressman Mineta, now Secretary Mineta, was before the Commerce Committee, he said: Don't worry, Senator. We are going to enforce our own laws on the Mexican trucks and on the NAFTA trucks as they come through. Then the logical question is, How many of these trucks have been inspected to date by the Federal Government? The answer is 2 percent of all the trucks that are coming in are being inspected. Then you say: All right. In those inspections, how many of those trucks are passing the safety inspections? The answer is 23 percent. Let me go through that again. The DOT is only inspecting 2 percent of the NAFTA trucks that are coming in across the Mexican border. Out of that, 23 percent failed inspection. It could be assumed that is the average that failed the inspection. Imagine how many trucks we would catch if we inspected 100 percent. How many people are in danger because we are not inspecting 100 percent? Therefore, those trucks are on the road. Secretary Mineta says: Don't worry, be happy. We are going to put the American law into place on these inspections. Yet we don't have the inspectors. Oh, they will have them by January, they say. I don't believe it. It isn't going to happen. As a matter of fact, I asked: What would happen if California then said in January we are tired of spending millions of dollars on our own inspections, and we are going to allow the Federal Government to inspect? The inspector general said: We would be in big trouble. Talk about an unfunded mandate, I think California is spending $30 million or $35 million on an inspection regime that is so good, by the way, that Senator Murray takes the decal plan. That is the amendment that is pending. But even with that, how many are we inspecting in California? Also, about 2 percent. We are only inspecting 2 percent of the trucks in California. Everyone says California is doing the best. It is a harrowing issue for all of us. Those trucks are going to wind up all over the country--in Illinois and on the east coast. They are already showing up there, by the way. They are breaking the law. They are only supposed to go 20 miles from the border. But they are breaking through, and they are showing up. How about this for one question--it was actually Senator Allen who asked the question of the inspector general: Why don't we just have those trucks turn around and go back to Mexico when they don't pass the inspection? Do you know what the inspector general said? Because they have no brakes. They have no brakes. Let me tell you why we have a problem. We have not checked these trucks as they come in. We are inspecting 2 percent. We can't get ready to inspect all the trucks by January 1. Now I have a better chart to show you. It is the same thing but a little bit bigger. This is much better. Here is our problem. In the United States, a truckdriver is allowed to drive up to 10 consecutive hours, work up to 15 consecutive hours with a mandatory 8 hours of rest, and cannot drive more than 70 hours during each 8-day period. Some people think that schedule is too harsh. There are issues in our own country about driving up to 10 hours consecutively, working up to 15 consecutive hours with the mandatory 8 hours of rest, and not driving more than 70 hours during each 8-day period. There are some in our country, including a lot of the safety experts, who say that we are too weak; that our drivers are too tired; and that there are too many accidents. Yet we are about to allow Mexican trucks in because we can't enforce any of this at the border when they have none of these restrictions. Let me repeat. There are no restrictions on Mexican drivers in terms of how many hours they have to work and on how many consecutive hours. There is no requirement of rest and no restrictions. If you are only inspecting 2 percent of the trucks at the border, you apply this, and you find someone who has been driving, say, for 20 hours straight, there is really nothing you can do if that individual just gets right through the border. We have random drug tests for our drivers. In Mexico, they do not have random drug tests. Medical conditions and qualifications: Absolutely, in the United States, if you have certain medical conditions, you cannot get your license. In Mexico, there are no such qualifications. The driving age for interstate driving in America is 21. In Mexico, it is 18. You are going to have an 18-year-old driving big-rig trucks and not getting any rest, who was never subjected to a random drug test, who might have a medical condition, and who is never disqualified. And Secretary Mineta says: Don't worry, be happy; We will catch them at the border. But we do not because we do not have enough inspectors. That is why Senator Murray's language in the bill is so important because she is going to say: Look, we are not putting an arbitrary date on you, but you are not going to do this. You are not going to have this situation until you are ready to inspect all of these vehicles. Let's look at the next chart. Let's compare truck safety regulations. In the United States, there are comprehensive standards for components such as antilock brakes, underride guards, night visibility, and front brakes. In Mexico, it is not as strong a test; there are less vigorous tests. For example, front brakes are not required. The maximum weight for a truck in the United States is 80,000 pounds; in Mexico it is 135,000 pounds. For any of you who know the issue of what happens when these heavy trucks are on our roads in terms of what happens to our roads, we even have troubles today because people are saying our trucks are too heavy. In Mexico, it is a 135,000-pound limit. Hazardous material rules: In America: strict standards, training, licensure, and an inspection regime. In Mexico it is very lax; there are fewer identified chemicals and substances and fewer licensure requirements. Roadside inspections--you see those stops where trucks have to pull to the side and get inspected--we have them in the United States. They do not have them in Mexico. Why is it important we show these differences? Because people say: We do not have problems with Canada. The thing is, in Canada they have regulations like ours. So inspecting all those trucks is not the same problem. When you have free trade between countries that have different rules and regulations as to the safety of the trucks, the safety of the drivers, it is a different situation. So the reason we have shown all this to you--and I will again show you the first chart--is because we have drivers coming in our country in these NAFTA trucks who may be driving--how many hours consecutively in one case?--up to 20 hours without a rest. They were not subjected to a random drug test in their country. They slip through the border because we are only inspecting 2 percent of the vehicles. And they could have a medical problem from which, if they had it in this country, they would have been disqualified. They could be 18 years old. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in the more than 25 years that I have been privileged to serve in public office, I have come to know many, many remarkable people. But rarely have I ever known anyone more talented, more compassionate, selfless and remarkable than Mimi Farina. Last Wednesday, at age 56, Mimi Farina lost a courageous, two-year battle with neuroendocrine cancer. While people around the country and around the world are saddened by her death, Mimi's courageous, crusading spirit will surely live on in the work of Bread & Roses, an organization that she founded in 1974. Bread & Roses is a unique, internationally renowned social services agency, held together by countless dedicated volunteers and a simple, compassionate mission: to bring free live music to people confined in institutions--in jails, juvenile facilities, hospitals and rest homes. Last year alone, Bread & Roses sponsored more than 500 concerts at some 82 institutions across the country. Mimi Farina gave up her own promising singing career to found Bread & Roses and to nurse it through years of hard times. The inspiration for Bread & Roses came to her in 1973, when she accompanied her sister Joan Baez and blues artist B.B. King to a performance at Sing Sing prison. She was deeply moved by the prisoners' reaction to the music they heard that day. That experience, coupled with a performance of her own a short time later at a Marin County halfway house convinced Mimi of the enormous need for an organization like Bread & Roses. Over the past quarter century, the work of Bread & Roses has been supported by a dazzling array of performers, including Bonnie Raitt, Pete Seeger, Paul Winter, Odetta, Lily Tomlin, Carlos Santana, Judy Collins, Robin Williams, Huey Lewis, Boz Scaggs and Taj Mahal. As Bread & Roses grew in size and stature, Mimi became its most prominent and persuasive advocate. She received many awards and accolades, including ``Woman of the Year'' from the Bay Area Women in Music, ``Most Valuable Person Award'' from the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, ``Woman Most Likely to be President'' from the San Francisco League of Women Voters, ``Woman Entrepreneur of the Year'' from the National Association of Women Business Owners and the 10th Annual Life Work Award from the Falkirk Cultural Center in San Rafael. She was among the first inductees into the Marin County Women's Hall of Fame. I close today with an offer of my deepest condolences to the family of Mimi Farina and to those who loved her, and with these words from the poem ``Bread & Roses,'' originally written for female laborers and put to music by Mimi: Our days shall not be sweated from birth until life closes. Hearts starve as well as bodies: Give us bread, but give us roses.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to share with the Senate a little of the remarkable life of Harry Renton Bridges, one of America's great labor leaders and most impassioned voices for democracy, progress and human dignity. Harry's many friends and admirers will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of his birth on July 28 with a march to the plaza which bears his name in San Francisco. Harry's legend began in 1934, when he helped lead the 83-day West Coast longshoremen's strike. This action remains a watershed moment in the history of the worker's movement in the United States. What was accomplished not only reverberated in San Francisco and up and down the West Coast, but eventually all across the country. Prior to this time, working conditions along America's waterfronts were deplorable. The men worked hard, for very little pay and often in very dangerous conditions. Under Harry's leadership, this changed. The strike brought employers to the table. As a result, dock workers and seamen were finally able to work with a measure of pride and security. What began as an insurgent labor movement in 1934 eventually grew into the International Longshore and Warehouse Union or ILWU. Under Harry's guidance, the ILWU helped lead the way in the fight for workers' rights and forms of social justice in the United States and around the globe. The Union stood steadfast against fascism during the 1930's and 40's. During the war it protested the detention of Japanese- Americans. It was one of the first unions to be thoroughly racially integrated. It fought McCarthyism and the communist witch hunts and blacklists. Harry and the ILWU spoke out early and loudly against apartheid in South Africa. And the list goes on. Wherever Harry sensed injustice he responded instinctively to correct it. Harry was a native Australian, but he made San Francisco his home. Here he is remembered as a hero. Many credit his vision and passion as a guiding force behind the City's compassion, tolerance and political progressiveness. Two years ago the San Francisco Port Authority officially named the new Ferry Building plaza the Harry Bridges Plaza. It was a fitting tribute to a man who did so much to transform the waterfront. Efforts are currently underway to further honor Harry and his memory through the construction of a monument on the plaza. Harry was truly one of a kind. Simply put, he cared enough to make a difference. Although he passed away over ten years ago, he and his memory continue to live on in the hearts of those who knew him and who continue to be inspired by his example.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for sharing that information.

Mrs. BOXER. And the request came from two Republican Senators?

Mrs. BOXER. Isn't the reason for the delay to work out this problem?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to address the amendment before us. Is that in order at this time?

Mrs. BOXER. I object to 6 o'clock.

Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am really disappointed that we have this amendment pending which would take $10 million out of a $40 million appropriation that my colleague Senator Feinstein has worked hard to get for the California water, I would say, near crisis. We have a process in California called the CALFED process. I think a lot of our States could learn some good lessons from this process. Why do I say that? Because we all know that questions about water, when it is in short supply, can be extremely contentious. We certainly know water is the staff of life. People need it to live. We certainly know that water and the free flow of water is important to our wildlife, to our environment, unless we believe we can abandon being good stewards of the environment and forget about the wildlife, about endangered species, and suddenly have a circumstance where we have fishermen worried they cannot fish. We certainly know we need the water for our farmers. The reason Senator Feinstein has worked hard on this appropriation is we did not have an appropriation last year. We have to move this process forward. We cannot abandon this very carefully balanced approach which I think has worked so well. We will have a reauthorization; that is clear. But the bottom line is we have many times appropriated funds where there was no authorization, where we had a history, a good history, with the project as we have had with CALFED. This important process would be harmed if the Murkowski amendment were to pass. Why do I say that? I refer you to the bill where we have very carefully explained it. My colleagues are again to be commended, for this spells out exactly where these funds will go. Yes, we have an environmental water council, which my colleague from Alaska talked about without seeming to praise it very much. But it is crucial because if we can take care of that particular part of the equation environmentally, it will free us up to get more water storage to be able to take care of the other users. The money that is in this bill is not put there lightly. My colleague from California understands the needs of the country. But every single appropriation is spelled out very clearly and very carefully. As I read it, most of this will go in terms of numbers for projects to find water for the farmers. And, yes, we have an environmental council that will take care of that set- aside. We know what it is to go through water wars in California. We know what it is to go through electricity wars in California. We know what it is to have people pointing fingers back and forth about who is to blame. We also know that the CALFED process works. It is very important that we hold it together. It is very balanced. As my colleague and I seek to get reauthorization, we are trying to be as one as we go forward. But we certainly have one goal, and that is to be true to the CALFED process. We will in fact be sending a very bad signal this evening if this appropriation is reduced. This funding is needed. This funding is important. This funding sends a signal to all stakeholders--be they urban users or farmers or environmentalists--that their goals are important; we will come behind those goals with funding. I think it will be in fact very detrimental to the CALFED process if the Senate sends this kind of signal tonight. This is not controversial. We talk about water. Water in itself always brings up controversy. But the CALFED process to date has been very successful. What Senator Feinstein has done and what the committee has done is to take those projects that are not controversial, that are part of the CALFED process, and fund them. I hope we will reject the Murkowski amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, because I was preparing for this debate, I do not know exactly the time I have been allowed. May I be informed?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to a great American who passed away on June 28, at the age of 98\1/2\-- an American whose life spanned virtually the entire 20th century and whose work influenced the course of the century. Dr. Mortimer Jerome Adler, author, educator and philosopher was born in New York City and subsequently moved to California where he lived a great portion of his life. Mortimer Adler devoted his life to the pursuit of wisdom, understanding, truth and knowledge, and to sharing what he learned with others. After having read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography at age 14 and learning that Mill had read Plato by the time he was five, he hit the books and never looked back. A prolific writer, Adler authored well over 50 books, including How to Read a Book; The American Testament; The Common Sense of Politics; Aristotle for Everyone; Ten Philosophical Mistakes; and Art, the Arts and the Great Ideas. It is readily apparent, Mr. President, that his interests were wide ranging and extensive. As editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Adler was responsible for revamping the encyclopedia in the form we know it today. He was also editor of the 60 volume set, The Great Books of the Western World and was also instrumental in devising the Great Books reading program, a book discussion program with chapters throughout the United States in which participants read and discuss classic texts. A professor at several universities including Columbia University and the University of Chicago, Mortimer Adler was probably the only person in America to receive his PhD before receiving his high school diploma, bachelors or masters degrees. As part of his unending quest to reform the American education system, he wrote, on behalf of the Paideia Group, The Paideia Proposal, a book explaining how and why the education that the best receive should be the education that all receive. Known as ``Everyone's Philosopher'' or ``the Philosopher of the Common Man,'' Mortimer Adler spent a lifetime demonstrating that philosophy was not a field only for some, but an endeavor for everyone. As the title of a journal that he published since the early 90's puts it succinctly, ``Philosophy is Everybody's Business.'' He was also the founder of the Institute for Philosophical Research and was instrumental in founding the Aspen Institute, an organization which engages leaders in business, academia and politics in discussions of perennial ideas using classic texts to facilitate discussion. Only rarely does a person of Mortimer Adler's intellect and ability come along. We are fortunate that Professor Adler was with us for as long as he was.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 10 seconds--two species of fish are gone--that is it, extinct. That is the scientific word from Fish and Wildlife. I hope we will defeat this amendment. I ask my friend to continue this conversation.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside, and further, I ask unanimous consent to send an amendment to the desk, that it be in order, and it also be set aside.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that it is the intent to seek additional funding for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Fund, UPARR, when the Senate Interior appropriations bill goes to conference. UPARR plays a vital role in supporting the last remaining green spaces in some of our most congested urban areas. This program takes a relatively small amount of federal funds and leverages them to make a substantial contribution to the development and improvement of our nation's urban parks, playgrounds, and recreational areas. For many of my constituents, these small pockets of open space are a vital part of their community. They serve as playgrounds for children, meeting places for adults, and areas for fun, recreation, and respite from the daily hustle and bustle of our Nation's most economically and socially stressed neighborhoods. I was pleased to see that the House included $30 million for this important program in its fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill. This amount includes a slight increase over last year's funding levels and is consistent with the commitment made to this program last year in title VIII of the Interior appropriations bill. I was disappointed, however, that the Senate bill did not match this funding level. I realize that this lower level of funding for UPARR is related to the lower overall level of funding in the Senate bill. When the bill gets to conference with the House, I hope we can accept the House level. Is that the chairman's intent?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada for making a motion to table the Smith amendment, which we will vote on at approximately 1:45. I wanted to thank my friend from Arizona who has an amendment he wants to lay down. He was gracious to allow me to go ahead of him and just not to interrupt the debate. I hope the motion to table the Smith of Oregon amendment does carry. We all share deep concerns about the current drought in southern Oregon and in northern California. My constituents have also been hard hit by this very dry year. But I think we cannot legislate on an issue that is so far-reaching by bringing an amendment to the floor before we have even looked at the possible remedies. I joined my colleague from Oregon in seeking $20 million in economic relief for losses facing Klamath Basin farmers, and I certainly pledge to continue working with him to seek more funding and a long-term solution to this very vexing problem of getting enough water for everyone who needs it and everyone who deserves it. The whole history of my State is, in many ways, built around the water issue. It is something we deal with all the time because we have more ag than any other State. It is one of our biggest businesses in California. We also know our State thrives because of tourism, our environmental ethic is very strong, and because we have such a magnificent State we get the tourists. Of course, we have more people than any other State in the Union--now almost 34 million people. So you have a constant debate, if you will, a constant struggle, if you will, between all the stakeholders. Everyone has something at stake with the water supply: The farmer, urban users, suburban users, and certainly the wildlife which do not have a voice, but we have to be their voice. I can't join my colleague from Oregon in undermining the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a recent opinion tells us that without this water the endangered fish will go extinct. Science tells us through the Fish and Wildlife Service that there are two species of fish that will become extinct if we carry out the plan of the Senator from Oregon. If we are going to take an action that would lead to the extinction of two species of fish, it ought to be done with a little different format and not come as an amendment to the appropriations bill. I agree that it is very possible that the Fish and Wildlife Service has not fully implemented its 1993 recovery plan for these fish. I call on them to implement that plan. But cutting off water to the fish this year doesn't solve that problem. It will cause the extinction to take place. I know that the immediate needs of my constituents in the farm areas and those in Oregon will not be helped this year. The reality is that most of the region's farmers didn't plant this year because they knew about this drought. Taking the water from these fish and the needs of these species is not going to help the farmers now. But economic relief will help them. I am certainly committed to that. We need to answer the dire needs of the farmers of the Klamath Basin. But driving the fish to extinction while providing little real gain to our farmers is certainly the answer. It is very hard to look constituents in the eye when they have a problem and say: If we help you make a move now that you say will help you even though, in fact, in this case it wouldn't really help this year, we can't do it because there is a bigger question; that is, the delicate balance in terms of who needs this water. It is hard to do that. But I think we can't come running to the floor every time to undermine laws that are in place--for real reasons. I happen to believe that we have the Endangered Species Act because we have to protect God's creatures. That is my own feeling. In fact, it is a responsibility that we have as a people to do that. If we don't do it, it is not going to happen. We have to move to protect these species. Again, there may be a reason to take another look at this matter, but I hope we will move to table. I am certainly committed to having some hearings and moving forward with more economic relief for the farmers that are affected in this Klamath River Basin. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I could just be told when I have used 30 seconds, and I will leave the remainder of the time for Senator Jeffords, my chairman. And I thank him for coming down here. Water is a vexing issue in California. We have had water wars for a long time. You have to figure out how everyone can be at the table: The farmers, the urban users, suburban users, and the environmental people--people with environmental concerns--because obviously the wildlife has no voice. We have to make sure we protect the wildlife. If this amendment goes through today----

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to help the estimated 1.5 million veterans who are now living in poverty by giving a tax credit to those employers who hire them and put them on the road to financial independence. This idea was proposed and is supported by the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans and the Non-Commissioned Officers Association. This legislation is based upon the current tax credit offered for employers who hire those coming off welfare. Veterans groups tell me that the current tax credit is underutilized by veterans because many are not receiving food stamps or are not on welfare. Because the bill I am introducing today bases eligibility on the poverty level, more veterans will be able to benefit from this credit. My bill would allow employers to receive a hiring tax credit of 50 percent of the veteran's first year wages and a retention credit of 25 percent of the veteran's second year wages. Only the first $20,000 of wages per year will count toward the credit. I offered this legislation as an amendment to the tax bill. While my amendment failed on a procedural vote, 49-50, opponents indicated that enacting this legislation would be a good thing to do. This being the case, I am hopeful that the Senate will take up and pass the bill I am introducing today in a bipartisan manner. It is the least we can do for our veterans who so bravely served our Nation and deserve our help. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.