Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Cole's nomination is troubling on several fronts. First, the Department of Justice, where he now serves as second in command since his recess appointment this past December, refuses to provide the Senate Intelligence Committee with documents we have been requesting for months. More than 2 years ago, the Intelligence Committee learned that the recidivism rate--the number of prisoners we release who go back into the fight--at Gitmo was 11 percent. Today it stands at over 25 percent. In this effort to close the detention facility at Gitmo, the President ordered a task force run by the Attorney General to review the status of all detainees still housed at Gitmo. Through much of 2009, the Gitmo detainee review task force examined every detainee's case and made recommendations to the administration on whether to transfer, release, or detain each one. At a time when Congress is aware that former Gitmo detainees are returning to their old ways, we have an obligation to the American people--an obligation to the American people--to make sure no more detainees are released who could cause us harm. Even though Gitmo remains open right now, efforts to transfer or release many of these detainees continue today. The documents the Intelligence Committee is seeking all relate to the task force process and will help the committee understand why the task force made the recommendations it did, especially with respect to those detainees who may have raised red flags for the intelligence community. We know that the Attorney General provided recommendations on how the task force should make its transfer decisions because of separate information provided to the committee. We do not have everything, however, including the September 2009 memorandum in which the Attorney General reportedly recommends that an entire category of detainees be presumed to be eligible for transfer--presumed eligible for transfer. While we have asked for this memorandum and any other recommendations repeatedly, the Department has refused to provide them. If the Attorney General of the United States recommended that certain detainees be treated favorably, possibly in spite of the intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee has a clear oversight interest in reviewing the September memorandum and seeing if and to whom it was applied. In addition to refusing to provide the September 2009 memorandum, the Justice Department has also denied the Intelligence Committee the recommendations of the task force. The committee cannot determine why the task force made its recommendations without seeing the description of how the task force came to the positions it did. The Department claims that both the September 2009 memorandum and the unredacted recommendations are protected from disclosure to Congress because of deliberative process. This is an assertion ordinarily used in a FOIA case or in the context of Executive privilege, not to inhibit congressional oversight of a Federal agency. An interesting inconsistency in this assertion is that the administration has willingly provided the Intelligence Committee with the recommendations of the past administration. I understand that in the last few days, the Attorney General has reached out to the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee in an effort to resolve these issues before today's vote. Given the Department's months of delays and obstruction in complying with this request, I believe cloture on this nomination is not appropriate until the documents requested have been provided in full. In addition to the document issue, Mr. Cole has not explained some highly charged comments he made about 9/11. An op-ed he authored back in September 2002 called the 9/11 attacks ``criminal acts of terrorism against a civilian population.'' He went on to dismiss the severity of 9/11, calling it no more horrible than ``the scourge of the drug trade, the reign of organized crime, and countless acts of rape, child abuse, and murder.'' Mr. Cole has not rejected or fully explained those comments. Until he does so and until the Department ends its refusal to comply with reasonable congressional requests for information, I cannot support the move to consider his nomination. I urge my colleagues to reject cloture today. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, are we in morning business?

Mr. BURR. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I wish to take a moment in this Chamber to honor the passing of the last doughboy, Mr. Frank Buckles, the last of those World War I veterans. Mr. Buckles was America's last living World War I veteran and he died Sunday in West Virginia. His death came 1 month after his 110th birthday, which he celebrated on February 1 with his family. Frank Buckles was dedicated to serving his country at all cost. He enlisted in the U.S. Army when he was only 16 years old. Throughout the Great War, Mr. Buckles proved himself to be a brave soldier. He served on the RMS Carpathia, drove ambulances and motorcycles in France and England, and escorted prisoners of war back to Germany. Mr. Buckles lived to see our country at war several more times in his life. He even survived as a prisoner of war during World War II. He had been captured while working for a shipping company in the Philippines. As a soldier and as a civilian, Mr. Buckles lived a life defined by hard work, love of country, and a sense of duty to his fellow citizens. His passing marks the loss of a generation that shared those same values, a generation that built America into the country it is today. My thoughts go out to his family. It is also important we recognize that Mr. Buckles' death is an important moment for all of America. Our country should come together to honor Mr. Buckles and an entire generation that has done so much to build a world where democracy and freedom are celebrated values. This is the reason that I cosponsor, with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, a resolution I hope our colleagues will support unanimously, to allow this last in a generation of heroes to be recognized by the Congress of the United States, either in a service or by lying in honor in the Rotunda, a privilege that is held for very few but one that I think rises to the occasion of the last hero of a generation, an individual and a generation that played such a part in the values of this country. We will have an opportunity to celebrate the life of this man, but, more importantly, to cherish the fruits of his commitment to those freedoms and those liberties that are protected still today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I join my colleague from North Carolina in praising the nomination of Judge Albert Diaz, and urge my colleagues to approve this nomination. The Fourth Circuit has suffered for some time under partisan politics. Good nominees have fallen by the wayside, and that time needs to stop. Judge Diaz is immensely qualified for this position and will serve well on the court. He has proven himself already by earning a reputation as a fair and impartial judge, and also for dedicated public service in the Marines and his community. After the treatment of some of the nominees for the Fourth Circuit and what they were subjected to, I am impressed that we still have high caliber nominees such as Judge Albert Diaz who would step forward to go through the nomination process. It is a proud day that Judge Diaz is getting the vote that so many never did. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this nomination and get this good man on the Fourth Circuit. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy.) All time has expired. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Albert Diaz to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit?

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I thank the Chair. I want to make some introductory remarks about the START treaty this afternoon. My real interest lies in the closed session that will take place on a later date. But this is an important debate. I have deep respect for not just the chairman but for the ranking member. But like all Members, I have a passion for this issue. I want to make some general comments at this time about it. The threat of nuclear engagement between the United States and Russia has diminished greatly since we began arms reduction talks with the Soviets in the 1970s. It is a credit to the agreements of past years that the strategic relationship between the United States and Russia has evolved to a point where Americans and Russians no longer fear a war between NATO and Warsaw powers. The world has changed in many ways for the better as a result of those bilateral arms reduction efforts. But today, the United States and our allies face emerging and destabilizing nuclear threats from rogue nations and nonstate actors who have shown no willingness to follow or accept international standards or adhere to nonproliferation treaties. While the new START treaty continues a historic dialog between two great nations, I am concerned that negotiated language in this treaty-- especially wording in its preamble about ``existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms''--may in fact signal a subtle yet troubling return to the Cold War linkage between offensive and defensive weapons. Some dismiss this wording as the flowery language of diplomats. But words have meaning. Treaty language is not filler. I can only conclude that this specific commitment reflects the current thinking of the President and his administration, which is a departure from their predecessors in past administrations, and offers the Russians a reason to leverage the treaty to their distinct advantage with respect to our efforts to improve upon our missile defenses. Even if a treaty such as the New START had a place in today's world, several key issues are lacking in the treaty that this body should and would have to address. One, the treaty does not address Russia's tactical nuclear weapons. Two, this treaty does nothing to address stored warheads. Three, this treaty is silent on rail mobile ICBMs. Four, this treaty allows the Russians to encrypt and hide missile test data for all new nuclear weapons they develop. This treaty places limits on our nonnuclear conventional global strike weapons--unheard of in the past. This treaty submits and subjects our Nation's objectives in missile defense to the review and approval of the Kremlin. This treaty ignores the nuclear capabilities, desires, ambitions, and plans of nations and non-nation actors who seek to undermine and harm U.S. national security interests. Many pundits have spoken about the urgent need to get the U.S. inspectors on the ground in Russia to verify the state of their new nuclear weapon systems and verify compliance. But when one examines the inspection protocols within this treaty, it will be clear that we must give such advance notification and jump through so many multiple hoops just to get approval to visit a site, by the time an inspection begins there is a high likelihood we will only see what the Russians want us to see and nothing more. Other supporters of this treaty contend that by ratifying New START we further enhance our relationship and leverage with the Russians, with respect to the destabilizing threats posed by North Korea and Iran. But the Russians already recognize the problems posed by these two countries, because they are along their borders. The Russians should not require this treaty as an incentive to protect their own regional interests. For these reasons, I remain concerned that by ratifying New START, the Senate would be allowing an outdated and narrow agenda to constrain our defense flexibilities and capabilities at the very point in history where we need a clear-eyed view of the real threats on the horizon. There is no urgent need to ratify New START this week, next week, or even next year. Given the numerous flaws in this treaty, to say nothing of the flawed backward-looking process that developed it, it is prudent for the Senate to work on ways to improve upon the treaty and how it has been put forth in order to better ensure the strategic interests of the United States and to make sure it is fully protected. Mr. President, my colleagues, our Nation does need a new start in our relationship with Russia. It needs a new approach. This treaty represents an old approach, based on Cold War relationships. In my estimation, it should be rejected by this body. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, are we working off of already arranged time?

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. The American people are worried about the direction of our country, and I absolutely share their concern. The public has witnessed Washington's growing disregard for the Constitution and its limits on government power. Too many of those powers see no limits to their authority, and that, to me, is frightening. The size of government has exploded, spending is out of control, the national debt is soaring, and Congress has passed thousands of pages of legislation with little concern for the effects on the rights of everyday Americans and with no thought at all to the debt we saddle our children and our grandchildren with. The Founding Fathers knew the dangers of expanding government power. The Founders knew what Barry Goldwater knew when he said: ``A government strong enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take it away.'' They established the judiciary branch in order to protect against an overly aggressive government. They envisioned it as a neutral arbiter of disputes based on the written law and as a check on government power grabs beyond the intended authority. This is why the judiciary is so important and why the lifetime appointment of a Justice to the Supreme Court is one of the most serious actions any of us will consider. We must have judges who are committed to the job of holding us to the words of the Constitution and laws that are written. We, in Congress, have proven again and again that we will not limit ourselves, and the executive branch continues to do the same. The American people knew this, and that is why they are concerned about President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. I am concerned that Ms. Kagan does not seem to recognize the limits the Constitution places on the Federal Government and does not understand or seem to understand the role of a Supreme Court Justice. Ms. Kagan, of course, does not have a judicial record for us to base our decisions on. I do not think that alone should disqualify her, but it does make it difficult to discern how she will perform as a judge. Ms. Kagan has spent most of her career in political roles and in the academic world. I do not think it is appropriate to cast my vote based only on her politics, but I do think her record shows she has been unable to separate her politics from her legal advice, even in her purely legal role in clerking for the Supreme Court. This is incredibly problematic. I am concerned Ms. Kagan will only further the rapid expansion of the Federal Government, that her actions, particularly on issues such as military recruiting, second amendment rights, and abortion, show that her first allegiance is to her own political views. Her record and her testimony demonstrate that she is likely to limit the powers of the Federal Government only based on her personal political views and not based on the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers established a Federal Government of limited power. They enumerated those powers and intended the list to be exclusive. In the 10th amendment, they specifically state: Powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution are reserved for the States. Everything not specifically named in the list of congressional powers was intended to be beyond Federal Government reach. Unfortunately, legal progressives have sought to stretch that list far beyond its breaking point. Often they have chosen as their tool the commerce clause, which gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce amongst the States. Over the years, Congress has relied on the commerce clause to pass laws well beyond the scope of what our Founding Fathers intended, laws regulating matters totally unrelated to interstate commerce, such as how much wheat a farmer can grow on his own land for his own use or where a person might possess a firearm. The Framers intended the limited nature of Congress's power as a method to protect the freedom of individual Americans to go about their lives without undue interference from government, but the limits the Constitution established matter only if our judges are willing to enforce them. I am sad to say I do not believe Ms. Kagan will enforce those limitations. During her hearings, Senator Coburn asked Ms. Kagan a very basic question, but it is an important question that deserves a direct and straightforward answer. Senator Coburn asked this: ``If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day, and I got it through Congress, and it is now the law of the land, does that violate the commerce clause?'' While Ms. Kagan acknowledged this would be a dumb law, she repeatedly stated the Court should give great deference to the will of Congress. She said: ``We can come up with sort of, you know, just ridiculous sounding laws and the principal protector against bad laws is the political branches themselves.'' I can certainly see why the American people are afraid, if the task of protecting against bad laws is left solely up to the political branch. Ms. Kagan had extreme difficulty in recognizing any limit at all on Federal powers. She simply refused to acknowledge that the Federal Government cannot pass a law telling American citizens what to eat. Of course, I can see why the Obama administration supports her. The recently passed health care legislation is an exercise of unprecedented government power. The new health care law mandates--mandates--that Americans purchase health insurance. By forcing Americans to purchase government-regulated insurance and by threatening them with IRS tax sanctions, the Obama administration is forcing its way into American lives in a way this country has never witnessed. Never before has the Federal Government forced Americans, under threat, to purchase a particular good or service. I strongly disagree and most Americans disagree with this expansive view of the Federal Government's powers. We need Justices on the Supreme Court who are ready and willing to stand and defend the Constitution. We need Justices who recognize that there are, in fact, limits to the Federal Government's powers. Not only must Supreme Court Justices recognize and enforce the limitations of the Federal Government, but they cannot owe any allegiance to advancing the political agendas of the President who appointed them. I do not believe Ms. Kagan fully appreciates this critical point. To the contrary, I believe that, if confirmed, she will be tied more to her own political agenda than to the Constitution of this great country. Ms. Kagan's record is truly disconcerting to me. Throughout her career, her record reveals that she put politics above the law. Such a philosophy has no place in the Supreme Court. I oppose Ms. Kagan not because of her political views, I oppose her because she has not demonstrated an ability to leave those political views at the courthouse door. As such, she fails to meet the minimum requirement for any judicial appointment: impartial fidelity to the written law. On military recruiting, Ms. Kagan has fought zealously to keep recruiters off our campuses during a time of war. As dean of Harvard Law School, she sent e-mails to the entire Harvard Law School community saying she abhors it, the military's don't ask, don't tell policy, and calling it a ``profound wrong,'' a ``moral injustice of the first order.'' The Obama administration has defended her actions against military recruiters saying these claims were overblown because she ultimately continued the practice of her predecessor in allowing the military to recruit through the school's veterans organization, which was primarily a social organization with fewer than 20 members. Yet even this paltry action was only a way to continue to receive Federal funding for the school. A Federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment, denies Federal funding to any institution of higher education that has a policy or practice that either prohibits or, in effect, prevents the military from gaining access to the campus or access to students on campus for the purpose of military recruiting in a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access to campus and to students that is provided by any other employer. Even then she explains that doing so caused great distress. Ms. Kagan did everything she could to fight the Solomon Amendment, even signing on to an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in the case of Rumsfeld v. FAIR, with about 40 other law professors opposing the amendment. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected their argument. Not one Justice found it convincing--not Souter, not Breyer, not Ginsburg, not Stevens. Ms. Kagan has demonstrated similarly poor judgment on the second amendment. When she was clerking for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, she had the opportunity to consider Sandidge v. United States, a DC firearms case remarkably similar to the 2008 DC v. Heller case, in which the Court ultimately struck down the DC gun ban. In evaluating the case for Justice Marshall, she recommended that the Court not even consider the case. Ms. Kagan wrote that the petitioner's ``sole contention is that the District of Columbia's firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to `keep and bear arms,' '' and then said, ``I'm not sympathetic.'' That was her remark to Justice Thurgood Marshall. Ms. Kagan also worked on several anti-second amendment initiatives in the Clinton administration. She worked on the Clinton administration's response to the Supreme Court's 1997 decision striking down parts of the Brady handbill law. The Court there said that Congress could not command State and local chief law enforcement officers to conduct Federal background checks on handgun purchasers. She considered such proposals as outlawing the sale of handguns where a chief law enforcement officer was unavailable or unwilling to conduct a background check, and also suggested that President Clinton issue an Executive Order to do the same. She coauthored two policy memos advocating for events and gun control proposals, including legislation requiring background checks for all secondary market gun purchases, a ``gun tracing initiative,'' a new law holding adults liable for giving children easy access to guns, and a call for a new gun design ``that can be shot only by authorized adults.'' She drafted an Executive Order restricting the importation of dozens of semiautomatic rifles that had been considered ``sporting'' and importable under the 1994 assault weapons ban. One of her colleagues in the White House described the plan by saying, ``We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.'' She also worked on an effort to allow background check information from lawful sales to be retained by law enforcement, and a member of her staff wrote, ``the longer we are able to keep records--even days, weeks--the more useful [it] will be as an overall law enforcement tool. This, of course, is exactly what the gunners don't want.'' ``Gunners,'' a new word. As Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan notably declined to submit a brief in support of the petitioner in the McDonald case--proably the biggest second amendment case in decades. In working on the Volunteer Protection Act, Ms. Kagan expressed concern to the Department of Justice that ``Bad guy orgs'' like the NRA and the KKK might be included in a ``cumulative list'' of nonprofits whose volunteers would qualify for liability protection from lawsuits. To lump the NRA in with such a despicable organization is an insult to gun owners across America. On partial-birth abortion and on taxpayer-funded abortions, Ms. Kagan also has a history of far-left advocacy on abortion issues, skewing even her legal judgments based upon personal politics. When she was working for Justice Marshall, she urged him to vote to deny review of a lower court decision holding that prison inmates had a constitutional right to taxpayer-funded elective abortions, and even though she admitted that parts of the decision were ``ludicrous'' and that the facts showed no constitutional violations, she called it ``well-intentioned.'' She insisted the Court should deny review, and let this decision stand, because she was concerned that the Court might ``create some very bad law on abortion.'' Memos and handwritten notes during her time in the Clinton White House demonstrate that she pushed even the Clinton administration further to the left on the issue. President Clinton at the time had expressed a desire to ban all elective partial-birth abortions, to which, as she wrote in a handwritten note to the White House Counsel at the time, ``This is a problem. . . .'' She was the lead person working on a strategy to ensure that elective partial-birth abortions remained available without real restrictions. In one memo, she lays out her plan to support a ``ban'' that includes a ``general health exception'' that would make the ban largely meaningless. Even when she heard that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was prepared to issue a statement stating that they ``could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman,'' she continued her fight. In an internal White House memo, she notes that the medical statement ``would be a disaster'' for the White House's case against the partial- birth abortion ban. Documents show that she then drafted new language, hedging the original medical judgment, which the organization then published as their own, verbatim. She then authored a memo to President Clinton arguing that his preferred approach, without the health exception, was unconstitutional, and that ``the groups will go crazy.'' Of course, in 2003, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, a law prohibiting partial-birth abortion, without such a health exception. The Supreme Court upheld that law. Conclusion: I am afraid Ms. Kagan's record demonstrates that she substitutes her own political viewpoints for legal judgment. If confirmed, I believe Ms. Kagan will add to Washington's growing disregard for the Constitution of this country and its limits on government power, instead of protecting against intrusion and government actions, as the courts were designed to do. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and recognize Mark Koster. This month, the Senate will bid farewell to one of the unsung heroes of this body. Mark, an associate counsel in the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel, is retiring and concluding his career on Capitol Hill. Over the last two decades, there is hardly a major Federal education law that doesnt have Marks imprint. Marks areas of focus have included higher education, special education, career and technical education, literacy, elementary and secondary education, and a number of early education programs. Mark has more bipartisan legislative accomplishments than many Members of Congress. Mark has made certain our ideas are drafted into legislation with technical precision, and his dedication to his work over the past two decades exemplifies true professionalism. Mark has treated every legislative initiative equally, no matter if he was drafting a relatively small amendment or a major reauthorization proposal for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act, or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Senators and their staffs all knew that when one saw Marks legislative signature, ``KOS,'' atop a document that the draft that had emerged from legislative counsel was in perfect technical shape and it was now up to us, as Members of the Senate, only to argue the draft's merits and relevance, not the format. As a member of the Senate HELP Committee, I am proud and honored to say that we, both present and former committee members, have considered Mark our staff, even though he has never been on the HELP Committee's payroll. Mark has been one of our cornerstones because he has always treated every HELP member and staffer with the greatest respect. Additionally, Mark has demonstrated a rather large dose of patience in dealing with time constraints, deadlines, and all the various personalities that traverse the Halls of the Senate. Although those of us who are members of the HELP Committee have consumed most of Marks time during his years as legislative counsel, Mark has always been of great assistance to every other Senate office that has needed aid in drafting education-related issues. All of us, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, have been lucky to have had Mark Koster on our side. Mark, we thank you for your service and dedication. The HELP Committee will always consider you both an honorary member and a part of our family. We and the entire Federal education lawmaking process will miss you. May your next chapter in life be even more successful and more rewarding than the one that is coming to a conclusion. We wish you, your lovely wife, Kathy, and your two children the very best.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 1 minute.

Mr. BURR. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, it is appropriate that the occupant of the Chair and I are here at the same time. I rise to congratulate North Carolina native John Isner for not only surviving the longest tennis match in Wimbledon history but for emerging victorious over Nicolas Mahut of France. Clocking in at over 11 hours, this first round match was historic in its length and its number of games--138 in the fifth set alone. Picking up this morning at 59-59 in the fifth set, the match continued with no break points until John hit a final backhand to finish the match in front of a packed, standing-room only crowd of amazed fans. Throughout that grueling competition, Isner maintained an impressive sense of calm under pressure, serving his opponent a record- breaking 112 aces. In addition to impressive play, John showed great respect and honor for his opponent after the match, and he displayed the kind of sportsmanship and chivalry that are often forgotten in today's sports world. This extraordinary match will not only be remembered in the history books but by all sports fans who witnessed the incredible competitive spirit of these two great athletes. John, congratulations to you, and we are pulling for you in the next round.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, this joint resolution recognizes the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean war, as well as honoring the strong friendship between the United States and the Republic of Korea. June 25 is a very important day, not only in Korean history, but also in U.S. history. On that day 60 years ago, Communist troops from the Soviet-occupied north crossed the invisible border at the 38th parallel to invade their free brethren to the south--killing thousands of civilians and forcing streams of refugees to flee their advance. Under the leadership of President Harry S. Truman, the United States responded to its first military challenge of the Cold War by dispatching U.S. forces to lead 15 other countries of a United Nations force to defend against the spread of communism. President Truman made his commitment to the war very clear: In the simplest terms, what we are doing in Korea is this: We are trying to prevent a third world war. . . . If history has taught us anything, it is that aggression anywhere in the world is a threat to peace everywhere in the world. When that aggression is supported by the cruel and selfish rulers of a powerful nation who are bent on conquest, it becomes a clear and present danger to the security and independence of every free nation. During the 3 years of the Korean war, 5.7 million Americans answered the call to duty, and almost 1.8 million of these men and women deployed across the Pacific to serve in some of the most harsh and unforgiving conditions along the rugged peninsula, in the skies above the Yalu River, on carriers and other surface ships at sea, or from staging and support areas in Japan. By the official cease fire on July 27, 1953, 54,246 American servicemen and servicewomen had sacrificed their lives to defeat Korean and Chinese Communist troops and push them north of what is known as the Demilitarized Zone. Since then, a stalemate has existed on the Korean Peninsula, with the United States supporting a free and prosperous Republic of Korea, while keeping a wary eye on the brutally repressive regime across the border. In the last 60 years, there have been several confrontational episodes and potential flashpoints between the two Koreas, and events of the last few weeks show us that the conflict continues today. Although we are hopeful that the swell of military action 60 years ago will be the most profound fighting in the Korean war, North Korea has shown a propensity to provoke its sister country in the South. This is clearly evident in the brutal murder of 46 South Korean sailors of the South Korean Navy ship, the Cheowan, on May 20. Compelling evidence points toward North Korean culpability in this latest episode. Such an act of aggression only serves to underscore and reaffirm the importance of the alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea. Today, U.S. Forces Korea--the combined American air, ground, and naval forces of roughly 28,500 American servicemembers--still stand ready to assist in the safety and security of South Korea near the Demilitarized Zone, DMZ, and throughout the rest of the peninsula below the 38th Parallel. This mutual and enduring friendship has been in evidence since September 11, 2001. South Korea has been an able and willing ally in the global war on terror, dispatching the 100th Engineer Group and 924th Medical Group to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Their forces have been integral in providing humanitarian and medical aid to soldiers and civilians alike, as well as working to rebuild infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq. I ask all of my esteemed colleagues to stand with me and pass this joint resolution, to not only commemorate the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean war and properly honor those Americans who served proudly in that conflict, but also to recognize the continued resilience and vibrancy of the alliance between our nations.

Mr. BURR

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

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I came to the floor to call up what I thought was a very important amendment. I understand the majority is not letting controversial amendments come up now, so I will not call it up and put the Chair on the spot of having to object. But I do want to take the opportunity to speak on my amendment. My hope is, if we conclude all germane amendments, I will have the opportunity, even if there is a limited amount of time to talk about them or debate them, that we would at least have a vote on them, because I think not to have a vote is to ignore the people we are representing. I intended to call up my amendment that proposes the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration have the authority to take any savings realized during the bid process on major construction projects and use it to fund other authorized construction projects within the VA; in other words, take care of providing the facilities our veterans need for the delivery of health care they have so richly deserved. Because of a bad economy, the VA has actually been able to strike unbelievable deals with the projects they had before them. From that, the best estimate I have is that the VA has saved $103 million on 12 projects. Let me say that again. The VA has saved $103 million on 12 projects. As my colleagues all know, in section 901 of this bill, it proposes taking $67 million from the construction projects for medical facilities and maintenance of VA facilities and to dump that $67 million into a thing we call the Filipino Equity Fund. Let me say that again, because I think most people listening probably do not believe what I said. We are going to take $67 million out of the VA construction and maintenance fund that we were able to save because of good work on contracting on 12 projects, and we are going to shift $67 million over to the Filipino Equity Fund. On the face you would say, well, if it is going to Filipino Equity Fund, it is not going to U.S. veterans. You are right. It is not going to U.S. veterans. Money appropriated by this Congress for the construction and the maintenance of medical facilities, hospitals, outpatient clinics, maintenance of those facilities, we are going to shift over to the Filipino Equity Fund. I will talk more a little bit later about the Filipino Equity Fund. First and foremost, the money saved in the bid process was appropriated to fund major construction projects within the Department of Veterans Affairs. We are talking about hospital construction, renovation, cemetery construction, and other capital improvements. Let me assure you the President knows this. The needs are vast. Let me quote from last year's Senate MILCON Appropriations report: The committee remains concerned that the Department has a significant problem with unfunded liability on its existing major construction projects. In fiscal year 2010 [this one] the Department will have 21 partially funded projects with a cumulative future cost of nearly $4.5 billion. Let me say that again: In this report from this Congress about the 2010 budget, we criticized the Veterans' Administration because they had 21 partially funded projects with a cumulative future cost of $4.5 billion. All of a sudden, this year, because of a down economy and our ability to negotiate better deals, we have a surplus in the account where we have saved $103 million. And what are we going to do? We are going to shift it all over to the Filipino Equity Fund, not put it toward $4.5 billion worth of identified shortfalls in existing projects that have already been started. We are not talking about the ones on the list that might go to the Presiding Officer's State or to my State of North Carolina, where I have got the highest percentage of veteran retirees as a percentage of anywhere in the country. Let me assure you, we have got needs today there. If you want to do something with that $103 million, I can put outpatient clinics in North Carolina where our veterans will receive real health care that they deserve and, more importantly, they earned because of their service to the country. But, no, $67 million of it is going outside of the Veterans' Administration and is going to the Filipino Equity Fund. Let me also quote from a prominent veterans organization, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, whose witness testified at the committee's February budget hearing. The challenge for VA is there are still numerous projects that need to be carried out, and the current backlog of partially funded projects is too large. This means that the VA is going to continue to require significant appropriations for the major and minor construction accounts. That is one of the veterans service organizations, the organization that represents veterans all over this country, warning us: You know what. There are so many projects out there, there is not enough funding to go around. Why are we doing this? Second, given the acknowledged need I have described, it makes no sense to remove the funds from an account expressly dedicated to meeting the needs of that account. There is no Member of the Senate who can tell me that VA construction does not need this $103 million. But we are going to shift it. We are going to do that because we can. Congress provides taxpayer dollars for major construction projects. These dollars should remain for that purpose. Why? Because the need exists. If not, taxpayers are going to have to pay for it with additional taxpayer money. Third, we have a massive deficit. I am not sure many Members of the Senate will acknowledge it. We have a massive deficit, and hard choices have to be made with limited resources. The choice here is what do you do with $67 million. This $67 million has been identified as savings within the VA construction budget. What do you do with it? Well, the amendment I would have offered--and, again, I wish I could call it up so my colleagues could debate it with me and vote on it, but it is contentious. I understand. I never thought it would be contentious to try to protect what our veterans are due. I never thought it would be contentious that if you found somebody taking money and putting it where the Senate did not authorize it to be that that was contentious. I thought that is why we were here. I thought that is called oversight. Well, the amendment I would have offered proposes that we keep the money to meet the needs Congress intended it for: to build hospitals, for cemetery construction, for major renovation of VA facilities. I have also filed an amendment proposing to fund the provisions of the family caregiver law the President just signed into law. I am not going to call it up. But my colleague, the Presiding Officer, knows; he sits on the VA Committee with me. The President signed into law a great bill. It is to allow a family member of an injured servicemember to be their advocate, those 1,500- plus severely injured Americans with a traumatic brain injury who need an advocate fighting for their rehabilitation, because, quite simply, the system does not fight for them. They could not leave their job and lose their salary because they lost their health care. And the President saw the wisdom in a bill that we passed out of the Veterans Affairs Committee. It is going to be costly, about $4 billion over 10 years, to give a financial stipend to that family member, a financial stipend that is no different than we would have paid some stranger off the street to come in and take care of that servicemember. Now we are going to give the same amount of money to that spouse or that father or that mother. And, oh, by the way, we also provide them access to TRICARE health care coverage that we provide our soldiers and their families. That is about $4.2 trillion. If you want to use $67 million for something that Congress didn't appropriate it for, which is construction, then let's use the $67 million to offset the funding of the caregiver program, something that is acknowledged that we need and, more importantly, we understand exactly what the impact is on our service personnel. The question my amendment presents is, Is providing additional resources for veterans so that they have modern medical facilities to receive care a higher priority than ensuring that Filipino veterans get a pension benefit? It is as simple as that. There is no way one can spin this any differently. We are either going to give Filipinos a pension benefit or we are going to supply our veterans with the health care infrastructure they need and, more importantly, deserve. Irrespective of where we come down on the Philippine issue--and I will provide my views on that momentarily--the ultimate issue is one of making tough decisions, tough choices. I personally don't think this is one of those. I respect my colleagues who believe otherwise. Two years ago, I took this floor to argue against establishing this special pension for Filipino veterans who fought under U.S. command during World War II. My argument was based on several factors. First, I didn't believe it was the right priority given the other needs that existed in our veterans community. Nothing has changed. There is a greater need in our veterans community today than there was 2 years ago when I argued the need on behalf of our veterans versus Filipino veterans. Second, I don't think it is appropriate to pay a benefit that is not adjusted for the different standards of living that exist between the Philippines and the United States. Example: Pensions in the United States for veterans achieve an income of 10 percent above the poverty level. The special pension we are talking about during this debate--and the debate 2 years ago--got Filipino veterans to 1,400 percent above Filipino poverty: U.S. veterans, 10 percent above poverty; Filipino veterans, 1,400 percent above the poverty line. We should have called this the Filipino millionaires club. Finally, I don't think these benefits were ever promised in the first place. I will not get into the exhaustive debate the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and I had 2 years ago. I don't remember a time where anybody told me anything I said was not factual or suggested it was wrong. I made a tremendous case that in the 1930s, these veterans were organized to fight for the soon-to-be-independent Philippine State. They were called under U.S. command in defense of their own homeland. Let me say that again. They were called under our command to defend their own homeland. The view of the Congress immediately following the war was that care of these veterans was a shared responsibility. The United States provided a limited array of benefits for Filipino veterans, including disability pay for service injuries, new hospitals, which we later donated to the Philippines, and medical supply donations. That was the Congress immediately following the war, the decision this body made when this was a fresh remembrance. It was never expected that the United States would provide the same benefits to Filipino veterans as we do for U.S. veterans. Here is a quote from 1946 made by then-Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Carl Hayden: [N]o one could be found who would assert that it was ever the clear intention of Congress that such benefits as are granted under . . . the GI bill of rights--should be extended to the soldiers of the Philippine Army. There is nothing in the text of any laws enacted by Congress for the benefit of veterans to indicate such intent. Again, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 1946, commenting on whether we were committed, whether we had promised, whether we had insinuated. The shared responsibility for Filipino veterans was a view that held across Republican and Democratic administrations for six decades. Proposed pension benefits for Filipino veterans was opposed by every administration in Congress since 1946 up until 2008 when all of a sudden we created the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund. Here are some facts surrounding the creation of the fund and why I am concerned with what we are doing today, especially on a bill that is meant to provide relief from recent disasters in the United States and to fund our troops. The Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund was created to make payments to Filipino veterans of World War II in increments of $9,000 or $15,000, depending upon citizenship. This body authorized the creation of the fund and appropriated $198 million to fund it. The fund was later officially created, and the $198 million was officially authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus package. Remember the big bill we passed to put Americans back to work? Well, $198 million went to create the Filipino equity fund. I wonder if it created any jobs over there. By law, Filipino veterans were given 1 year in which to file claims for benefits against the fund. That 1-year period ended February 16, 2010. February, March, April, May--we are a little over 3 months past the deadline for any Filipino veteran who wanted to file a claim to file the claim. The law also required--and this is important--that the Veterans' Administration submit detailed information within the President's budget submission on the operation of the compensation fund, the number of applicants, the number of eligible persons receiving benefits, and the amount of funds paid. I am not sure anybody here would be shocked to learn that we got the President's submission, but there wasn't a VA report in it. As a matter of fact, in December, when, as ranking member, my staff inquired with the VA what the balance of the Philippine equity fund was, we were well under $198 million having been allocated. That was the end of December. We only had 60 days left for people to actually process their applications before the cutoff date. I find it unbelievable that we would spend almost as much in the last 60 days as we spent in the first 10 months, as people applied for this benefit. There was no detailed information provided in the President's budget. All that was there was an estimate that the administration expected $188 million to be expended on submitted claims. I turn to my colleague from Maine, but I think the President's budget came in in February or early March, after the deadline. The President's budget said they are going to use $188 million, well short of the $198 million Congress had already appropriated to the Philippine equity fund. At no point in the intervening months since the President submitted his budget were we notified of a shortfall in the fund. We see the pattern. The pattern is the White House said there was enough money. We had a surplus in there. The Secretary of the VA never told the ranking member, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the White House, or my staff that they were short money. We will take up at another time with the Secretary of the VA his statutory obligation to submit a report to the Congress, but now we are here. On May 7, Secretary Shinseki sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees informing them, but not officially requesting, of a $67 million shortfall. Where did this come from? This is like ``Star Trek.'' Just out of the blue, it appears, 3\1/2\ months after the deadline for filing. Well, if you look at the amount of disability claim backlogs at the VA, you understand they don't process things very quickly, even for our veterans. But they have processed the Filipinos' a lot faster than they have ours and, more importantly, they have reached out in a supplemental spending bill. It is an emergency. A supplemental spending bill is for emergencies. How does this fit as an emergency? Tell me where this should not be offset? Why should the American taxpayer be required to go out and borrow this money? I apologize. It is paid for. We are stealing it from the VA. We probably borrowed it to give it to the VA, but now we are stealing it from the VA and giving it to the Philippine equity fund. I find it interesting that we are rushing to meet this shortfall without understanding how exactly we went from being under budget to being grossly over budget. I say ``grossly.'' We allocated $198 million. The White House projected in February they were going to use $188 million. All of a sudden, we have to take another third in an emergency capacity to make sure they can meet the needs. One other point I wish to make: There is clear language authorizing appropriations for the Philippine equity fund. Make no mistake. There is authorization language, clear authorization language. I quote from the Recovery Act now, the stimulus package, in reference to the funding for the Philippine equity fund: It is authorized to be appropriated to the compensation fund $198 million to remain available until expended to make payments under this section. So even in the underlying bill language, if the underlying bill language is enacted, the VA has no legal obligation to spend it. They have no legal authority to spend it--let me put it that way--because the additional money hasn't been authorized. We authorized $198 million. For the VA to spend more, quite frankly, they do not have the authority, as I read the law, and as I read the language quoted in the stimulus bill, the Recovery Act. This kind of oversight is what happens when matters are rushed through without appropriate vetting. This week our Nation's debt went above $13 trillion. Spending is out of control, and there is no end in sight. As a nation, over the next 10 years--if we did not borrow another penny--we owe $5.4 trillion in interest payments to service the money we have borrowed. If we compare that to the entire sovereign debt of the European Union, which is $12.7 trillion, we owe almost 50 percent of the entire sovereign debt of the European Union in interest payments over the next 10 years--not in reducing debt, servicing debt. Although another $67 million to add to the Filipino fund might seem like a drop in the bucket, I do not think it does to people in North Carolina: the soldiers at Fort Bragg, the marines at Camp Lejeune, the airmen at Seymour Johnson, the aviators at Cherry Point, the servicemembers who ship all the ammunition the U.S. military uses out of Sunny Point, the thousands of family members who rely on the health care and the benefits. We are experiencing an unemployment rate in North Carolina of 10.8 percent. Nationally, we are at about 9.9 percent. At a time when the typical family in North Carolina is struggling to meet the obligations at the end of the month--meaning they buy what they need and not what they want--what does the Congress do? The Congress says the hell with our veterans. Let's take money we have designated and put over here for construction and to build cemeteries and to do maintenance for our veterans--let's take $67 million of it and fund this pot of money that even the Secretary has not justified why they need it. In a tough fiscal climate, tough choices must be made. I say to the President, I say to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we have been more than generous to the Philippines, to the Philippine veterans. But, Mr. Chairman, our needs must be met first--the needs of our veterans, the needs of our economy, the needs of the American people, the protection of the fiscal integrity of this country. America wakes up every day expecting us to change. Every day they wake up thinking: Maybe Congress will recognize the difficult financial situation we are in--only to see us, in a week like this, where we are desperately trying to borrow another $300 billion, and we claim it is an emergency. This is not an emergency. If we owe it, it can wait. If we owe it, we should pay for it; we should not borrow it. We should not steal it from the VA. We should not steal it from our children and our grandchildren. We should not steal it from the veterans. If we owe it, let's pay for it. I had wished to call up this amendment. I hope before we end the debate on this supplemental spending bill--but I do not know--I will put it this way: We will, before we end this supplemental spending bill, have an opportunity to vote on this because I will object to leaving before we will. I will not hold the majority or the minority Members to the floor to hear me rant and rave again, I promise the chairman that. I have said my piece. But I hope they will show me the dignity of voting on it. I hope they prove to America this body still has rules and that we follow those rules. It is a germane amendment. It gets to the heart of one specific piece of it. Two people can disagree on whether it is an emergency. Two people can disagree on whether it is a priority. But I think the one thing we can all agree on is we can never, ever pay our veterans enough. There is no amount of money, there is no service, there is no benefit we can provide that satisfactorily takes the veterans of this country and thanks them appropriately. We are in this institution because of them, and when we do this future generations question why. Today, I hope my colleagues question why, and when given an opportunity, vote in support of my amendment and strike this from the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment.

Mr. BURR. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have deep respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He said earlier this afternoon that President Roosevelt made a promise. I can tell my colleagues I had my staff go to the Roosevelt Library. We didn't just leave it up to the study done by the Senate. We can find no promise--no promise by President Roosevelt, no promise by General MacArthur, no promise by individuals who were intricately involved in the commitments at the end of the Second World War in the Pacific. In fact, we did take care of those Filipinos who served as scouts for the U.S. services, and they got full VA benefits. What we are talking about--and this is not the purpose of this discussion--is a continuation, an addition to the Filipino equity fund. Two years ago we passed legislation creating that fund. We appropriated $198 million, and we allowed 1 year from the enactment for any Filipino who wanted to claim to, in fact, put in an application. That deadline was February 16. At the end of December, my staff talked to the VA, and they had obligated under $100 million. The legislation at the time required the Secretary of the VA to submit in the President's budget this year a detailed report of the number of applications and, more importantly, a breakdown of how much money and to whom it went. That was not supplied in the President's submission to Congress. When the President's budget came, the President's budget said they needed $188 million, $10 million short of the $198 million we had already appropriated. Now out of the clear blue sky, Secretary Shinseki sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee chairman and said: We need another $67 million. Well, the deadline was February 16, before the President's budget was constructed. There was no explanation as to what it is going to be used for and no understanding of to whom this money goes. I want my colleagues to listen. What my amendment does is strike this from the bill. What Senator Inouye's amendment does is give the Secretary the option to leave the money where it is or to divert the money to the Philippine equity fund. I will assure my colleagues the Secretary will divert it. Where does it come from? It comes from already appropriated money that is in the construction fund at the VA for hospitals, for outpatient clinics, for national cemeteries, and for the maintenance of the facilities for our veterans. This is wrong. If there is an obligation we have to keep, it is to our veterans--ones who rely on the best facilities to deliver care to them. Once again, I ask my colleagues to vote against the Inouye amendment and vote for the Burr amendment. I thank the Chair. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that would improve the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan program. This program, established in 1998 and supported with a $48 million appropriation in 1999, was intended to encourage additional development of transitional housing units for homeless veterans. Despite the good intention, the program was viewed as too rigid by community providers who turned elsewhere for assistance. In fact, only one loan was ever guaranteed under the program until VA discontinued it 2 years ago. The legislation I am introducing today would modify the program to give it the flexibility that community providers say is needed. The bill is cost neutral, relying only on money that Congress already has appropriated. According to VA more than 107,000 veterans are homeless on any given night, including an estimated 1,589 in my home state of North Carolina. Many veterans are considered homeless or at risk due to their poverty, lack of support systems, and poor living conditions. Even though we have seen a decrease in the number of homeless veterans from previous years, there is still work to be done. Make no mistake; the goal is not only to end homelessness but provide sustainable solutions to prevent veterans from, again, falling through the cracks. One area that will continue to play an important role in keeping veterans off the streets is the provision of transitional housing units coupled with onsite supportive services. There are a number of VA programs that encourage the development of transitional housing units for homeless veterans. One such program, as I previously mentioned, was established by Congress in 1998--the Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guarantee Program. It was designed to encourage lenders to make low-interest loans, backed by a VA guaranty, available to homeless providers for the acquisition, construction, and improvement of transitional housing units. One provider, the St. Leo Campus for Veterans in Chicago, IL, operated by Catholic Charities, availed themselves of a VA-backed housing loan. However, St. Leo's experience is illustrative of why no other provider was able to secure a loan and why the program was ultimately discontinued. The St. Leo Campus for Veterans provides 141 studio units, each containing its own kitchen and full bathroom, to formerly homeless veterans as well as supportive services to help them become self- sufficient. On the St. Leo Campus, VA operates a clinic to provide outpatient services. In order to get financing for the St. Leo Campus, Catholic Charities obtained funding from ten sources, to include the VA-backed loan, various state-supported tax credits, and other creative funding sources. Needless to say, the St. Leo Campus has been faced with numerous operational challenges that are typical of a provider servicing the homeless population. What exacerbates the challenge is the rigidity of the original VA loan program. Without flexibility in loan terms and conditions, St. Leo Campus struggles to make ends meet, bringing into question the sustainability of the project. To provide the necessary services to homeless veterans, St. Leo Campus has relied on one-time grants and donations which, in a difficult economy, are a highly volatile source of revenue. Flexibility in the terms of its VA-loan, as my bill would provide, would give St. Leo Campus and other homeless providers a chance to weather some of these cyclical funding challenges. Recognizing the financing challenges many have in serving this unique population, my bill provides VA with the authority to issue loans under terms that are far more flexible than the original program. The legislation tracks each of the recommendations made in a report to VA regarding how the Multi-Family Transitional Housing Loan Program could be improved. Specifically, the legislation would give VA greater flexibility in the types of loans it may offer and the conditions attached to repayment, including payment deferral, interest only payments, and debt forgiveness. It would give VA the authority to sell, lease, or operate a multifamily transitional housing project in the event of default. It would preempt any Federal, State, or local housing statute that limits a project from offering preferential treatment to veterans. Lastly, it would clarify that projects financed with a VA loan may include space for job training programs, other types of residential units, or other uses that the Secretary determines necessary for the sustainability of the multifamily transitional housing projects. Transitional housing developed using VA-issued loans under my bill would still come with a requirement that a provider make available supportive services to reduce the likelihood of veterans again becoming homeless. These would include health care services; daily living services; personal financial planning; transportation services; income support services; fiduciary and representative payee services; legal services; child care; housing counseling; and other services necessary for maintaining independent living. Finally, I again reiterate that this legislation calls for no new appropriation. It relies exclusively on $48 million appropriated, (but unspent), in 1999 to meet the administrative expenses and initial lending capital VA will require. As homeless providers make payments to extinguish any loan balance, VA will have the Opportunity to make additional loans. I am committed to doing all we can to end homelessness among veterans. But I am also committed to doing it in a way that is not duplicative and fully utilizes money the American people have already put forward. I ask my colleagues for their support of my bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that would improve the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan program. This program, established in 1998 and supported with a $48 million appropriation in 1999, was intended to encourage additional development of transitional housing units for homeless veterans. Despite the good intention, the program was viewed as too rigid by community providers who turned elsewhere for assistance. In fact, only one loan was ever guaranteed under the program until VA discontinued it 2 years ago. The legislation I am introducing today would modify the program to give it the flexibility that community providers say is needed. The bill is cost neutral, relying only on money that Congress already has appropriated. According to VA more than 107,000 veterans are homeless on any given night, including an estimated 1,589 in my home state of North Carolina. Many veterans are considered homeless or at risk due to their poverty, lack of support systems, and poor living conditions. Even though we have seen a decrease in the number of homeless veterans from previous years, there is still work to be done. Make no mistake; the goal is not only to end homelessness but provide sustainable solutions to prevent veterans from, again, falling through the cracks. One area that will continue to play an important role in keeping veterans off the streets is the provision of transitional housing units coupled with onsite supportive services. There are a number of VA programs that encourage the development of transitional housing units for homeless veterans. One such program, as I previously mentioned, was established by Congress in 1998--the Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guarantee Program. It was designed to encourage lenders to make low-interest loans, backed by a VA guaranty, available to homeless providers for the acquisition, construction, and improvement of transitional housing units. One provider, the St. Leo Campus for Veterans in Chicago, IL, operated by Catholic Charities, availed themselves of a VA-backed housing loan. However, St. Leo's experience is illustrative of why no other provider was able to secure a loan and why the program was ultimately discontinued. The St. Leo Campus for Veterans provides 141 studio units, each containing its own kitchen and full bathroom, to formerly homeless veterans as well as supportive services to help them become self- sufficient. On the St. Leo Campus, VA operates a clinic to provide outpatient services. In order to get financing for the St. Leo Campus, Catholic Charities obtained funding from ten sources, to include the VA-backed loan, various state-supported tax credits, and other creative funding sources. Needless to say, the St. Leo Campus has been faced with numerous operational challenges that are typical of a provider servicing the homeless population. What exacerbates the challenge is the rigidity of the original VA loan program. Without flexibility in loan terms and conditions, St. Leo Campus struggles to make ends meet, bringing into question the sustainability of the project. To provide the necessary services to homeless veterans, St. Leo Campus has relied on one-time grants and donations which, in a difficult economy, are a highly volatile source of revenue. Flexibility in the terms of its VA-loan, as my bill would provide, would give St. Leo Campus and other homeless providers a chance to weather some of these cyclical funding challenges. Recognizing the financing challenges many have in serving this unique population, my bill provides VA with the authority to issue loans under terms that are far more flexible than the original program. The legislation tracks each of the recommendations made in a report to VA regarding how the Multi-Family Transitional Housing Loan Program could be improved. Specifically, the legislation would give VA greater flexibility in the types of loans it may offer and the conditions attached to repayment, including payment deferral, interest only payments, and debt forgiveness. It would give VA the authority to sell, lease, or operate a multifamily transitional housing project in the event of default. It would preempt any Federal, State, or local housing statute that limits a project from offering preferential treatment to veterans. Lastly, it would clarify that projects financed with a VA loan may include space for job training programs, other types of residential units, or other uses that the Secretary determines necessary for the sustainability of the multifamily transitional housing projects. Transitional housing developed using VA-issued loans under my bill would still come with a requirement that a provider make available supportive services to reduce the likelihood of veterans again becoming homeless. These would include health care services; daily living services; personal financial planning; transportation services; income support services; fiduciary and representative payee services; legal services; child care; housing counseling; and other services necessary for maintaining independent living. Finally, I again reiterate that this legislation calls for no new appropriation. It relies exclusively on $48 million appropriated, (but unspent), in 1999 to meet the administrative expenses and initial lending capital VA will require. As homeless providers make payments to extinguish any loan balance, VA will have the Opportunity to make additional loans. I am committed to doing all we can to end homelessness among veterans. But I am also committed to doing it in a way that is not duplicative and fully utilizes money the American people have already put forward. I ask my colleagues for their support of my bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the important occasion of Women's History Month. Since 1987, the month of March has been dedicated not only to remembering and appreciating the distinguished accomplishments of women, but also to commending their continued positive influence on society. I would like to call particular attention to the contributions of North Carolina women, as they have consistently proven themselves to be revolutionary in their thoughts and actions and have contributed immensely to the development of our Nation since its conception. Our way of life has been bettered in countless ways by women revolutionaries, crusaders, politicians, athletes, and everyday citizens of North Carolina. From the 51 patriotic women who organized the Edenton Tea Party to Dolley Madison, whose social grace and political acumen helped create the modern White House; from Harriet Jacobs, a North Carolina escaped slave who exposed the injustices of slavery in her ``Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl,'' to Mary Jane Patterson, the first African-American woman to receive a bachelor of arts degree; from Tabitha Ann Holton, the first licensed female attorney in North Carolina and the South, to Dr. Annie Lowrie Alexander, the State's first female physician; from Sallie Walker Stockard, the first woman to graduate from the University of North Carolina to Kay Yow, the great North Carolina State University women's basketball coach who led American women to gold at the 1988 Seoul Olympics; from Eliza Jane Pratt, the first woman to represent North Carolina in the United States Congress to Elizabeth Dole, the first female U.S. Senator from North Carolina and dedicated public servant, the history of North Carolina's women is America's history, and it is truly remarkable. During Women's History Month, we honor the generations of women who have achieved notoriety in the past, however, we must do more than remember. It is imperative that we reflect on the present and prepare for the future. It is the hardworking North Carolina women who are continuing to serve our society as parents, doctors, teachers, nurses, businesswomen, soldiers, marines, and in countless other capacities that will impact our Nation's history in a powerful and positive way. We must build on the legacy of these great North Carolina women, especially those who serve anonymously and who have preserved the American way of life while contributing so much to the strength and character of our Nation. The women of our great State have triumphed throughout our history, and I know that they will play a leading role in our future.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Let me add, if I may, to my good friend, Senator Gregg, even though some would choose not to have coverage and pay the fine, we have an emergency room system that is obligated to see those individuals when they have traumatic care. For those who claim we have sorted out the system where the high-cost delivery of care does not exist, no, we have again exacerbated the problem. I think Senator Coburn hit on the key. As you try to handle the health care of individuals by limiting the reimbursement, whether that is the way we are limited in the problem you are trying to fix, whether we do it by shoving them into Medicaid, you have now cost shifted more money to the side causing greater inflation for the health care in this country.

Mr. BURR. I have learned throughout this whole process to never try to figure out what promises have been made. But I know the promise we have made to physicians--to reimburse them fairly for the services they provide--and anything less than that jeopardizes the pool of health care professionals we have and eventually will affect the quality of care simply because if the pool is not big enough to handle the patients, the quality will suffer.

Mr. BURR. Because the Senator from New Hampshire remembers this body did pass a bill that partially paid for an extension of this through September of this year. The problem was, when they passed the health care bill, they used the pay-fors out of that extension bill to be included in this health care bill. Now they have gone to a point that they just seek the 30-day renewals and claim it is an emergency. One, I don't think that passes the threshold of emergency. I think it should be paid for. And there is a legitimate way to pay for it and extend it for 3 years, where this Congress can fully understand the implications of the current health care bill as it is implemented and put back the comfort of physicians around this country and their trust back in the system.

Mr. BURR. You are absolutely right, it will be the first order of business when this bill is finished if we miss the opportunity to fix it in this bill and fix it for 3 years and actually fix it in a way that it is paid for.