Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of North Carolina State Trooper David Shawn Blanton, Jr., who was tragically killed on June 18 during a routine traffic stop near Canton, NC. David is the 59th North Carolina State Trooper to have been killed in the line of duty. David was only 24 years old and was a 2-year veteran of the North Carolina Highway Patrol. He was a native of Sylva, NC, and a 2002 graduate of Smoky Mountain High School where he was a football and wrestling star. We are all grateful for David's dedication to protecting the citizens of North Carolina. He lived in Cherokee with his wife Michaela, who had just given birth to their son Tye 2 weeks ago. David was a member of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indian Tribe and the first member of that tribe to serve with the Highway Patrol. In addition to being a State trooper, David volunteered as the Junior Varsity softball coach at Smoky Mountain High School. Along with his wife Michaela and son Tye, David is survived by his father, David S. Blanton, Sr., mother, Jennifer Blanton, and younger brother, Jesse Blanton. David's friends, family, fellow troopers, and the people of North Carolina are mourning this very tragic loss. I know there are no words I can offer to help comfort Michaela and other members of the Blanton family, but I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me in keeping them in our thoughts and prayers. David gave his life in service to our State, and this ultimate sacrifice should never be forgotten. I send my deepest condolences to all who had the privilege of knowing this young man who gave his life in service to our State.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would end an arbitrary process through which our own Government takes away the Second Amendment rights of American veterans. As most of my colleagues know, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act prohibits the sale of firearms to those who have been ``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' The Government maintains a database on these individuals called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or ``NICS.'' The Brady Law and the NICS database aims to prevent those who may pose a danger to society or themselves from purchasing a firearm. Gun shop owners use NICS to screen customers before selling a firearm. Needless to say, it is a serious matter to have one's name on the NICS. Every American should expect a rigorous and fair process before their right to bear arms is taken away. Unfortunately, when it comes to certain veterans, surviving spouses, and children, the process is neither rigorous nor fair. Since 1999, VA has sent the names of 116,000 of its beneficiaries to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS. None of these names were sent to the FBI because they were determined to be a danger to themselves or others. They were listed in NICS because they could not manage their financial affairs. We should not take away a Constitutional right because someone can't balance a checkbook or pay their bills on time. This practice is arbitrary, unfair, and applies a double standard. VA's review process for assigning a fiduciary is meant to determine one's financial responsibility in managing VA-provided disability compensation, pension, and other benefits. For example, a veteran may be assigned a fiduciary if they have credit problems. The VA focuses on whether or not benefits paid by VA will be spent in the manner in which they were intended. Nothing involved with VA's appointment of a fiduciary even gets at the question of whether an individual is a danger to themselves or others, or whether the person should own a firearm. Yet that is exactly what happens if VA appoints a fiduciary. Over 116,000 individuals have been listed in NICS since 1999 because they were appointed a fiduciary. This includes veterans, surviving spouses, and even children. This process is not only arbitrary, it is unfair. Taking away a Constitutional right is a serious action and veterans should be afforded due process under the law. At the very least, we should expect such decisions to be made by a competent judicial authority and not by civilian government employees. The current practice is also a double standard. Only VA beneficiaries fall under these guidelines. The Social Security Administration assigns fiduciaries to help beneficiaries, yet the Social Security Administration does not send their names to the NICS. Why are we singling out those who fought for this country and those who sacrificed while their spouse or parent served? My legislation would end this arbitrary and unfair practice that strips the finest men and women of this country of their right to bear arms. This legislation would require a judicial authority to determine that an individual is a danger to themselves or others before their Second Amendment rights are taken away. I am not here to ask that we put guns in the hands of dangerous people. I am here to ask that we treat our veterans fairly and we take the rights of our veterans seriously. No matter where my colleagues fall on the gun issue, I hope we can all agree that we need a process that is consistent and fair. Our veterans took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They deserve to enjoy the rights they fought so hard to protect.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would end an arbitrary process through which our own Government takes away the Second Amendment rights of American veterans. As most of my colleagues know, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act prohibits the sale of firearms to those who have been ``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' The Government maintains a database on these individuals called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or ``NICS.'' The Brady Law and the NICS database aims to prevent those who may pose a danger to society or themselves from purchasing a firearm. Gun shop owners use NICS to screen customers before selling a firearm. Needless to say, it is a serious matter to have one's name on the NICS. Every American should expect a rigorous and fair process before their right to bear arms is taken away. Unfortunately, when it comes to certain veterans, surviving spouses, and children, the process is neither rigorous nor fair. Since 1999, VA has sent the names of 116,000 of its beneficiaries to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS. None of these names were sent to the FBI because they were determined to be a danger to themselves or others. They were listed in NICS because they could not manage their financial affairs. We should not take away a Constitutional right because someone can't balance a checkbook or pay their bills on time. This practice is arbitrary, unfair, and applies a double standard. VA's review process for assigning a fiduciary is meant to determine one's financial responsibility in managing VA-provided disability compensation, pension, and other benefits. For example, a veteran may be assigned a fiduciary if they have credit problems. The VA focuses on whether or not benefits paid by VA will be spent in the manner in which they were intended. Nothing involved with VA's appointment of a fiduciary even gets at the question of whether an individual is a danger to themselves or others, or whether the person should own a firearm. Yet that is exactly what happens if VA appoints a fiduciary. Over 116,000 individuals have been listed in NICS since 1999 because they were appointed a fiduciary. This includes veterans, surviving spouses, and even children. This process is not only arbitrary, it is unfair. Taking away a Constitutional right is a serious action and veterans should be afforded due process under the law. At the very least, we should expect such decisions to be made by a competent judicial authority and not by civilian government employees. The current practice is also a double standard. Only VA beneficiaries fall under these guidelines. The Social Security Administration assigns fiduciaries to help beneficiaries, yet the Social Security Administration does not send their names to the NICS. Why are we singling out those who fought for this country and those who sacrificed while their spouse or parent served? My legislation would end this arbitrary and unfair practice that strips the finest men and women of this country of their right to bear arms. This legislation would require a judicial authority to determine that an individual is a danger to themselves or others before their Second Amendment rights are taken away. I am not here to ask that we put guns in the hands of dangerous people. I am here to ask that we treat our veterans fairly and we take the rights of our veterans seriously. No matter where my colleagues fall on the gun issue, I hope we can all agree that we need a process that is consistent and fair. Our veterans took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They deserve to enjoy the rights they fought so hard to protect.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I rise today to congratulate a college baseball team that won a national title last month. I am speaking of Mount Olive College in Mount Olive, NC. They beat Ouachita Baptist in a 6-2 victory to win the NCAA Division II National Baseball Championship--the first national championship title of any kind in Mount Olive College history. The Mount Olive Trojans finished the season with a 58-6 overall record. The Trojans ended their season strong winning 24 out of their final 26 games. This win marks an especially extraordinary one for Mount Olive College Trojans. This is the Trojans first-ever national championship win in any sport. In a town made famous for their pickles, baseball can now be added as a point of interest. Led by head coach Carl Lancaster, the Trojans were up by a five-run lead at the end of the first inning. Thanks in part to Josh Harrison's at-bat that resulted in a single and Dylan Holton's three-run double, Mount Olive mounted an early 5-0 advantage over Ouachita Baptist. Mount Olive College was featured on national television in the May edition of ``NCAA On Campus.'' This gave the players a chance to brag a little about their accomplishments, as all nine players in the Trojans' starting lineup were nationally ranked in at least one statistical category at the time of taping. The Trojans' efforts have not gone unnoticed by Major League Baseball. Five of the players from Mount Olive's 2008 National Championship team will all be playing professionally in the coming year. Additionally, four players have been named All American. This is wonderful news for these deserving young men. Also due recognition is the Trojans' academic performance. Their emphasis on academic success earned them a team grade point average of 3.13 on a 4 point scale. The baseball team's success can be attributed to their well-rounded 2008 roster that included: Jackson Massey, Jesse Lancaster, Anthony Hernandez, Anthony Williams, Weston Curles, Todd Jeffreys, David Cooper, Mike Kicia, Paul Novicki, Tyler Smith, Pat Ball, Alex Vertcnik, Dylan Holton, Rich Racobaldo, Joseph Westbrook, Andy Hilliard, Kyle Jones, Jason Sherrer, Josh Harrison, Casey Hodges, Erik Lovett, Michael Williams, Ryan Schlecht, Craig Beasley, Thomas Newsome, and Airlon Vinson. The team was coached by: Carl Lancaster, Aaron Akin, and Rob Watt. Again, I commend the Mount Olive Trojans, the 2008 NCAA Division II Baseball National Championship team and coach Carl Lancaster on an incredible season. Also, I would like to wish those players drafted into the Major Leagues the best of luck.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 3127, the Select Agent Program and Biosafety Improvement Act of 2008. Last week, I introduced this important legislation with my friend Senator Ted Kennedy. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his partnership. I enjoyed working closely with him in the 109th Congress on the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, which was signed into law in December 2006. He continues to be one of the great leaders in the U.S. Senate and I look forward to continuing to work with him to ensure our laws protect the American people from health threats of all kinds. S. 3127 will enhance our Nation's biosecurity and improve the biosafety of our most secure laboratories. The bill achieves two overarching goals. First, it reauthorizes and improves the Select Agent Program. This program was created in the 1990s to control the transfer of certain dangerous biological agents and toxins that could be used for bioterrorism. The program expanded after the anthrax attacks in 2001; however, the authorization expired at the end of September 2007. Second, the bill evaluates and enhances the safety and oversight of high containment laboratories. These laboratories are used by scientists to study select agents and other infectious materials. Labs are categorized by their safety level. There are four levels, termed Biosafety Level, BSL, 1 through 4, with 4 being the highest level. The number of these labs has grown, both domestically and internationally, in the last several years. Recent incidents in which laboratory workers were exposed to disease agents have highlighted the need to evaluate ways to improve the safety of these labs. The Select Agent Program is jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services', HHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS. The program was intended to prevent terrorism, and protect public and animal health and safety, while not hampering legitimate research. This is an obvious struggle that requires careful consideration, particularly when science is rapidly advancing around the globe. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, it is illegal to possess ``select agents'' for reasons other than legitimate research. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 further required laboratories and laboratory personnel to undergo background checks by the FBI prior to approval for possession of select agents. As of April 2008, there are 72 select agents, meaning the agents pose a severe threat to public or animal health and safety. Thirteen of these agents are found naturally in the United States. There are 325 entities and 9,918 individuals registered with the CDC to work with select agents and toxins, and 75 entities and 4,336 individuals registered with APHIS. We take four key actions in S. 3127 to strengthen the Select Agent Program. First, our legislation reauthorizes the program through 2013 and calls for a comprehensive evaluation of the program. The review, to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, will look at the effects of the program on international scientific collaboration and domestic scientific advances. Historically, the United States has been an international leader in biosecurity. In fact, Canada recently proposed legislation to tighten safety and access to pathogens and toxins of concern for bioterrorism. Canada's new legislation, released in April 2008, would establish a mandatory licensing system to track human pathogens, similar to our Select Agent Program. It also ensures compliance with the country's Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines across the country. Second, the bill ensures a comprehensive list of select agents. Currently, CDC and APHIS develop a list of agents and toxins to which the program regulations apply. However, we believe some additional factors should be considered in revising the list. For example, scientific developments now make it possible to create agents from scratch or to modify them and make them more deadly. Highly infectious viruses or bacteria that are otherwise difficult to obtain can now be created by scientists using ``synthetic genomics''. In addition, we now have more information from the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, about the threat posed by certain bioterrorism agents. In 2002, U.S. researchers assembled the first synthetic virus using the genome sequence for polio. Later, in 2005 scientists reconstructed the 1918 pandemic influenza virus. Then in January 2008, a ``safe'' form of Ebola was created synthetically. While this ``safe'' Ebola can be used for legitimate research to develop drugs and vaccines to protect against it, a scientist could also change it back to its lethal form. Also, earlier this year, advancements in technology yielded the first synthetic bacterial genome. We must consider these scientific advances, including genetically modified organisms and agents created synthetically, if we are to address all agents of concern. In addition, DHS's recent biological risk assessments provide new information for our assessment of biological threats. This information should also be considered when determining which agents and toxins should be regulated. Next, the bill encourages sharing information with State officials to enable more effective emergency State planning. State health officials are currently not made aware of which agents are being studied within their State. This leaves medical responders, public health personnel, and animal health officials unprepared for a potential release, whether accidental or intentional. Lastly, S. 3127 clarifies the statutory definition of smallpox. The Intelligence and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 criminalized the use of variola virus, the agent that causes smallpox. The statutory definition of the virus includes agents that are 85 percent identical to the causative strain. Researchers are worried this could be interpreted to also include the strain used to develop the smallpox vaccine, as well as less harmful naturally occurring viruses. This sort of ambiguity could be detrimental to necessary medical countermeasure research and development. Our bill requires the Attorney General to issue guidance clarifying the interpretation of this definition. In addition, in this legislation we take three key actions to evaluate and enhance the safety and oversight of high containment laboratories. First, our bill evaluates existing oversight of BSL 3 and 4, or high containment, labs. The bill requires an assessment of whether current guidance on infrastructure, commissioning, operation, and maintenance of these labs is adequate. As I mentioned, the number of these labs is increasing around the globe. As these new facilities age, we need to make sure they are appropriately maintained. It is essential that laboratory workers and the public know these facilities are as safe as possible. If the guidance we currently have in place is not adequate, then we need to know how to improve it. Second, the bill improves training for laboratory workers. As the number of laboratories and personnel increases, we must ensure workers are appropriately trained and lab accidents to not increase. Accidents and injuries in the lab, such as chemical burns and flask explosions, may result from improper use of equipment. Our bill develops a set of minimum standards for training laboratory personnel in biosafety and biosecurity, and encourages HHS and USDA to disseminate these training standards for voluntary use in other countries. Finally, the bill establishes a voluntary Biological Laboratory Incident Reporting System. This system will encourage personnel to report biosafety and biosecurity incidents of concern and thereby allow us to learn from one another. Similar to the Aviation Safety Reporting System, which gathers information on aviation accidents, this system will help identify trends in biosafety and biosecurity incidents of concern and develop new protocols for safety and security improvements. Lab exposures to pathogens not on the select agent list will also be captured through this type of voluntary reporting system. In closing, I encourage my Senate colleagues to join Senator Kennedy and me as we work to improve our Nation's biosecurity and biosafety systems by passing S. 3127, the Select Agent and Biosafety Improvement Act of 2008. I thank the many researchers, scientists, and State health officials from across the country who shared with me and my staff their ideas, experiences, and recommendations. In this time of exciting scientific advances, we must ensure our laws and prevention programs are updated to reflect current conditions. In addition, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to protect the American people from bioterrorism. The Select Agent Program is an important part of ensuring the Nation's safety and security and I look forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize and improve the program.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I wish to honor the life of Jacklyn Harrell Lucas. Mr. Lucas was born in Plymouth, NC, to Louis Harold and Margaret Lucas on February 24, 1928. He was in the eighth grade at Edwards Military Institute when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Lucas felt an obligation to serve the country and refused to let age get in his way. Ten months after Pearl Harbor, Jack Lucas joined the Marine Corps Reserve at the age of 14. He listed his age as 17 and joined without his mother's consent. Lucas soon reported to Parris Island for basic training, where he qualified as a sharpshooter. He was assigned to a machine gun crew and moved to Pearl Harbor at the end of 1943 where he was promoted to PVT first class. A year later, Lucas and his unit had not been deployed, so Lucas decided to deploy himself. He stowed away on the USS Duel, which was carrying the 5th Marine Division to battle in the Pacific. A month into the journey he came out of hiding. Despite being reported as AWOL a month earlier and having been reduced in rank, PVT Jack Lucas was assigned to the 5th Marine Division. He was assigned to a rifle team and longed to get into the fight. On February 19, 1945, Lucas finally got his wish as he and 30,000 other marines stormed the beaches of Iwo Jima. On the second day of the invasion, Lucas was pinned down with three members of his rifle team when two grenades landed in their foxhole. His Medal of Honor citation describes best what happened next. Private Lucas ``unhesitatingly hurled himself over his comrades upon one grenade and pulled the other one under him, absorbing the whole blasting force of the explosions in his own body in order to shield his companions from the concussion and murderous flying fragments.'' He saved the lives of his fellow marines by an act that would almost surely result in death, but Lucas survived. Seven months and twenty-one surgeries later, Lucas was medically discharged from the Marine Corps. He left the service with over 200 pieces of shrapnel in his body. A month later he was awarded the Medal of Honor. Private Lucas was only 17 years old. He was one of 27 marines given the medal for their heroic actions at Iwo Jima. Eight-two marines were awarded the Medal of Honor during World War II, and almost a third received the medal for their heroism during this historic battle. Lucas is the youngest person ever to receive this Nation's highest military honor. This Nation lost one of its best on June 5, when Jacklyn Harrell Lucas succumbed to cancer. He is survived by his wife Ruby C. Clark Lucas; 4 sons--William, Jimmy, Louis, and Kelly; a daughter, Peggy; 3 stepdaughters, Joan, Debbie, and Melinda; a brother, Louis; 15 grandchildren; and 16 great-grandchildren. Madam President, the determination, patriotism, and selflessness of Jack Lucas should be admired by all. He was a fine North Carolinian and a great American.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce a resolution honoring the last surviving member of a heroic group, the American World War I veterans. When the U.S. entered the First World War in 1917, 4.7 million Americans donned a military uniform and fought with the Allies struggling in an imperialistic battle of trench warfare. Now, 90 years after America's entry into the war, only one veteran remains. Corporal Frank Woodruff Buckles, born in 1901, was sent to England and France during the First World War after exaggerating his age on Army paperwork. Eager to join the action, Buckles trained in the ambulance services and acted as a driver, remaining after the armistice to escort prisoners of war back to Germany. Mr. Buckles now stands as the last representation of the Americans that served in the Great War. Though now distanced by the following economic depression, subsequent World War and more recent conflicts, World War I still remains a critical part of our history, symbolizing the emergence of our country as a superpower and demonstrating the willingness and selflessness of those who serve in our military. These men, 90 years later, still deserve the recognition and admiration of a grateful nation. In honor of Frank Buckles and the millions of veterans he stands for, I am introducing a resolution authorizing Mr. Buckles to lie in honor in the rotunda of the Capitol upon his passing so that citizens may pay tribute to the last member of this faithful group of Americans. After a period of repose, Mr. Buckles will receive final burial at the Arlington National Cemetery, a privilege offered earlier this year. I introduce this resolution now, so that Mr. Buckles will be aware of the respect we wish to pay to him and his fellow veterans. We should not allow this generation to fade from our society without showing our appreciation of their service. As Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and on behalf of Senator Byrd, I ask my colleagues to join us in extending this honor to Mr. Buckles.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, the extension of the Lacey Act within this legislation to cover imported timber and wood products sends a strong signal that the U.S. Congress is serious about supporting the President's Initiative Against Illegal Logging. The practice of illegal logging--both in the United States and abroad--is a deplorable act that poses environment threats as well as threats to legitimate businesses that operate within the rule of law. It is crucial, that as this legislation is implemented, a clear distinction be drawn between ``innocent'' owners in the supply chain who in good faith trade in wood products that they believe to be legally harvested abroad, and those who knowingly traffic in illegal material. It is the concern of Congress that this line be clearly drawn when prosecutions occur under this act. Therefore, I support the provision included in this act that places the burden of proof in civil forfeiture cases on the government, as provided by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. To my colleagues: What we have today is a choice between something and nothing. I am not sure that is fair for our veterans. I am not sure it is fair for the American people. Procedurally, what the leadership has decided to do is to give us one choice. When you have one choice, it is not a choice, it is a mandate. The choice they have given us today as Republicans, quite honestly, and as a Senate, is either support what they have prescribed to us or vote against it. The President has already said: I am going to veto this bill because, from a policy standpoint, it does not embrace what is in the best long- term interest of this country and of our security. I think the American people understand that. Procedurally, the only tool we have is to say we are not going to vote for it or we are going to stand with the President and uphold his veto and bring the majority back to the table to present a process that allows us to debate the differences between the two competing views. I believe it is worth it when we talk about the education of our veterans. I believe there are parts of the Webb bill that are very well done, and there are parts of the Graham bill that are extremely beneficial to our soldiers. We will never get that opportunity unless enough people in this body are willing to stand up and say this process absolutely stinks and we are not going to stand for it. The politics of it Senator Graham pointed out very well. There are some who believe the politics of the next election trump whether this bill is right or whether the process is fair. I don't believe politics should play a part in this. I only wish those who have expressed such concern about this education benefit would help me fix K-through-12 education, where last year 70 percent of the high school students in this country graduated on time, and 30 percent of our kids do not have the tools to be asked to interview for a job. But we are more passionate about making sure we don't even create a choice on education for our veterans. They have no voice in this. This dictates what their benefit is going to be in the future. I think we have a right to come down and debate the merits of two proposals but not under the structure we have been given today. The politics of this have gotten ugly. This week an ad was run that showed a veteran who had been injured in battle, a service-connected injury, and it said unless you support the Webb bill, there is no education benefit for this injured vet. Well, let me say today that is a lie. It is factually challenged. Any servicemember who has a service- connected injury has 100 percent coverage for their education benefit today without us doing one thing. It is called the Vocational Rehabilitation Program within the Veterans Administration. It covers their tuition, public and private, Harvard or North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It doesn't matter if it is a State or private school. It covers their room, their board, and their tuition. It will even pay for somebody to work with them on their resume enhancements, on interview techniques. Every person with a service-connected disability is covered under vocational rehab. To suggest in an ad that they are left behind if the Webb bill is not passed is absolutely the most disingenuous thing I have ever seen. From a policy standpoint, do our veterans deserve the ability to determine whether the GI benefit they have qualified for is, in fact, transferable to a child? Well, what we are saying today is no. No, you don't have a right to do that. That is our benefit. We dictate in legislation how you use it. We are not going to have a debate on whether transferability, whether a servicemember who qualifies for an education benefit should have the right. Their decision.

Mr. BURR. I thank the Presiding Officer. Should it be their decision to decide whether a spouse or family member, who has sacrificed so much, is going to be the recipient of a benefit or whether they are going to let it expire because they have the education they need? Well, not having the debate, we are not going to have an option to sell to our colleagues, to sell to veterans, to sell to the American people why veterans deserve more than what the Webb bill offers. We have only valued it on dollars, not on benefit. From a policy standpoint, this creates a tremendous inequity between States because the benefit is actually determined by where a veteran actually chooses to go to school, not by where they live or where they came from. It is not equal for every veteran. Some will get more, some will get less, and the unintended consequences are that States will look at that subsidized higher education today and say: Why should we subsidize it in the future, we get cheated when the Government pays us. We know who will pay for that: All the kids who go to school. All the kids in the future who are not connected to the military, when they go in to make their tuition payment, are going to be the ones who pay the brunt of this situation. There is only one way to stop this, and that is to make sure we uphold the President's veto. We are not going to defeat the legislation to move forward, but we have to uphold the President's veto if, in fact, we want to bring this legislation back to the Senate floor, have a real debate about the differences in the legislation, a real debate about what is important to our veterans, a real debate on what affects retention, a real debate on what provides the security we need in this country in an all-volunteer Army. I am convinced that our colleagues understand the importance procedurally of making sure this comes back to the Senate in a fashion that we can actually have a real debate about creating a choice between something and something versus the setup today, which is something and nothing. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I also would request to be notified at the end of 5 minutes.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, for the last 8 weeks, a group of Republican Senators, led by Senator Vitter, have come to the floor to talk about health care. Thus far Senators Vitter, Thune, Isakson, and DeMint have spoken about health care particularly the choice we are facing this November in electing our next President. I don't think there has ever been such a clear difference in opinions between parties on an issue that issue is health care. One side would like the Government to run health care. The other side would like to give individuals and families the resources to access their own health care that they can control and take with them from job to job. In a nutshell--big government v. individual and family choice. This week I am responsible for talking about the most tangible area we see this dichotomy--Medicare. Under Medicare, beneficiaries either have fee-for-service or Medicare Advantage. The Government sets prices and makes coverage decisions under fee-for-service. Multiple private sector companies offer comprehensive coverage under Medicare Advantage. But the best example of individual choice and private sector competition is seen under Medicare's drug benefit--Part D. Let me first talk about Medicare Advantage. In 2008, Medicare Advantage plans are offering an average of approximately $1,100 in additional annual value to enrollees in terms of cost savings and added benefits. Some examples of extra benefits available through Medicare Advantage plans are; No. 1, coordination of care; No. 2, special needs services; No. 3, predictability in out-of- pocket costs; No. 4, reduced cost-sharing for Medicare covered services; and No. 5, vision and dental benefits. Competition in the Medicare Advantage Program has created significant value for beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage enrollees typically benefit from reduced cost-sharing relative to FFS Medicare. All regional PPO enrollees have the protection of a required catastrophic spending cap and a combined Part A and B deductible. Sixty-seven percent of plans have coverage for eye glasses. Eighty-three percent have coverage for routine eye exams. Eighty-six percent cover additional inpatient acute care stay days. Ninety percent waive the 3-day hospital stay requirement for skilled nursing facility care. Many Medicare Advantage plan enrollees also receive basic Part D prescription drug coverage at a lower cost than stand-alone Part D plans can provide. Enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans that include Part D coverage save money on drug coverage in two ways: No. 1, Medicare Advantage plan drug premiums for basic coverage in 2008 were, on average, about $6 less than average Part D premiums for basic coverage; and No. 2, the Medicare Advantage payment structure allows Medicare Advantage with Part D to use rebates to further reduce Part D premiums. On average, Part D premium savings from rebates was more than $16 per month in 2008. In 2007 it was reported that 99 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have access to Medicare Advantage plans with zero added premiums, while 86 percent have access to plans that would cover prescription drugs with a zero premium through Medicare Advantage. Some say Medicare Advantage is not needed because Medicare meets all the needs of the beneficiaries, but if this was true, millions of seniors would not purchase supplemental Medigap coverage to add benefits and pick up some costs. If Medicare Advantage plans were no longer available to those currently enrolled, 39 percent of the beneficiaries would go without supplementary coverage because they could not afford it. According to the NAACP, Medicare Advantage plans have been able to provide low income beneficiaries more comprehensive benefits and lower cost-sharing than if they just had Medicare alone. Medicare Advantage enrollees report on their experience in Medicare Advantage plans through the Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Survey, CAHPS. Scores from CAHPS are consistently high. Eighty-six percent of respondents give their plan a rating of 7 or higher, on a scale of 10. Ninety percent of respondents indicated that they usually or always received needed care. And 88 percent of respondents indicated that they usually or always received care quickly. As I said earlier, the greatest example of individual choice and private sector competition is found in Medicare Part D. The overall projected cost of the drug benefit is $117 billion lower over the next 10 years than was estimated last summer due to the slowing of drug cost trends, lower estimates of plan spending, and higher rebates from drug manufacturers. Compared to original Medicare Modernization Act projections, the net Medicare cost of the new drug benefit is $243.7 billion, or 38.5 percent, lower over the 10-year period, 2004 to 2013. Ninety percent of Medicare beneficiaries in a stand-alone Part D prescription drug plan, PDP, will had access to at least one plan in 2008 with lower premiums than they were paying in 2007. In every State, beneficiaries had access to at least one prescription drug plan with premiums of less than $20 a month. The national average monthly premium for the basic Medicare drug benefit in 2008 is projected to average roughly $25. Seventeen organizations will offer stand-alone prescription drug plans nationwide in 2008. Beneficiaries had a wide range of plans from which to choose--some that have zero deductibles and some that offer other enhanced benefits, such as reduced deductibles and lower cost sharing. There also are options that cover generic drugs in the coverage gap for as low as $28.70 a month; nationwide, beneficiaries in any State can obtain such a plan for under $50 a month. Consumer satisfaction with the Part D benefit is very high: Wall St Journal/Harris Interactive, December 2007--87 percent satisfied; VCR Research/Medicare Rx Network, November 2007--83 percent satisfied; KRC/ Medicare Today, October 2007--89 percent satisfied; and 90 percent of dual eligible beneficiaries and 85 percent of beneficiaries with limited incomes are satisfied. Both the KRC and VCR survey show that satisfaction is increasing 10 to 12 percent over the past 2 years and that 65 percent to 77 percent say that their Medicare plan is saving them money. Our experience with the Medicare Advantage and Part D drug plan shows one thing--competition and choice works. Under Part D we have true competition--private plans bidding against one another and driving down the price of drug benefit packages to seniors. Seniors can go onto Medicare.gov and select the plan that best suits their needs for drugs, copays, pharmacy locations, and the overall premium. As I described earlier--premiums are more reasonable than we predicted and satisfaction is very high--competition and choice works. Under Medicare Advantage we have competition-lite. Plans compete for beneficiaries, but Medicare Advantage reimbursement is tied to Medicare fee- for-services rates in an area. People love to talk about how Medicare Advantage plans are reimbursed too much, but unfortunately that rally cry is based off a study that did not compare apples to apples. If you compare the cost of delivering Part A and B services alone, Medicare Advantage plans are only paid 2.8 percent more than Medicare FFS. I am comfortable paying 2.8 percent more because seniors have more choices, they receive more comprehensive benefits, and their care is coordinated under Medicare Advantage plans. Medicare Advantage plans actually match treatments with diseases and maintenance care with chronic conditions. Senator Coburn and I want to move Medicare Advantage from competition-lite to full competition. We will be introducing a bill in the coming weeks that will force Medicare Advantage plans to truly compete against each other on price. Medicare Advantage plans already compete on service and quality under our bill they will have to taken lessons from Part D drug plans and compete on price. If you have been listening from the beginning, you hopefully understand how effective competition and choice have been in two parts of the Medicare program. And you understand why I want that same robust health care competition and choice for every American. Every American deserves access to quality, affordable health care of their choice and competition between health care plans will help achieve that goal.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleague, Senator Graham, and I really do thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have come to the floor and talked about the GI bill and the fact that we were asleep for a number of years from the standpoint of making changes in the law that reflect the cost of education. But what I want my colleagues to understand and the public to understand is that the Department of Defense used what we call education kickers to provide retention tools for our Active-Duty troops. Throughout this whole period, as they saw promising service men and women and they wanted them to stay in the military, they used what we call education kickers. They upped the amount of their education benefit if they would re-up for a period of time--3 years, 5 years, 6 years. So to say that $1,100 was the ceiling, that is not accurate. The fact is, we have reached a point in time when we need to change the number in the law, what the base amount is that is the promise this country is making to our service men and women when they serve. I think it is appropriate, given we have gone through a decade--and I am sure most Americans would not find this hard to believe--where the highest area of inflation in America over the last 10 years has not been health care. It has been higher education. For any parent who is going through higher education with a child today, they know exactly what that means--that it costs a whole lot to go there. Senator Webb deserves a lot of credit because for 18 months he has talked about changing our financial level of commitment. I have to say that has been healthy for the men and women who are serving. It has been healthy for this Senate to begin the debate on it. I do not want anybody to leave this debate and feel we are not both headed in the same direction. It is just that I have some fundamental disagreements with the way he structured it. I believe there is a way to fulfill the promise, that if you serve, then we are going to commit to you, we are going to provide you with a quality education. When my dad came back from the Second World War, he had most of his education paid for before he left, but this is not something he went out and shopped. This is not something where he said: Gee, there is a benefit. Let me find the most expensive place I can go, and let me exercise it there. He focused on what he wanted to be and where the tools were that were available to him. Sometimes we have to stop for a minute and reflect: What are the unintended consequences of what we do in this body? Well, one thing with the Webb bill is we disregard the fact that part of higher education comes out of the Department of Education today. It is called Pell grants. For those service men and women who qualify for them, that goes toward their education. The way this bill is written, we pay for their education, and the Pell grant, if they qualify--which most would--is then available for them after their education to pocket as cash. I am not sure that is the promise we made. I am not sure it is the promise the American people are committed to fulfill. I am not sure it is what our service men and women expect. They want an education. What we have done is we have structured an alternative, the Grahamm- Burr-McCain bill, that provides exactly that. It is targeted at the average of the cost of public education in America. Now, fundamentally, I do not believe a student who picks an art and design school in the State of Michigan should be entitled to $13,000 for that school. Yet if he chooses the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, then he is only going to get $5,300. Why is there a discrepancy in those two schools? Because States subsidize higher education at a different level because it is a State decision. It is State money that is used to subsidize higher education. In North Carolina, we choose to subsidize higher education to the tune of 70 percent. We do not expect every State to choose to subsidize it at that level. But by the same token, why would we create a program that disenfranchises North Carolina, that says to North Carolina: Oh, boy, you are going to be cheated because you subsidize higher education so that more of your kids can have an affordable option. And because now the Federal Government would have paid everything, you are going to lose money because you subsidize higher education. Unintended consequence: We are going to chase States out of the business of subsidizing higher education. What is the net effect? Every kid in America who does not serve 3 years Active Duty, cumulative, is going to pay more because States are not going to subsidize. I am not sure that is what we are after. I surely do not suggest that is the intent of Senator Webb's legislation. It is what will happen if, in fact, we pass the legislation. So Senator Graham and I and Senator McCain looked for: How do we take the existing system--not create a new one; this is not a wheel that is broken; it works, but let's fund it at today's funding needs. Now, Senator Graham covered a lot of things that are in the bill. For an Active-Duty servicemember who serves 3 years Active Duty, we are going to provide $1,500 in living expense and tuition every month as a benefit. We are going to provide $1,000 for books and fees a year. For that individual who stays in the military over 6 years, 50 percent of the education benefit they accrue is transferable to a family member: a spouse or child. If a servicemember chooses to serve for 12 years or more, 100 percent of their GI education benefit is now transferable to a spouse or a child. I think it is safe to say that for most who make a career out of the military, they have numerous opportunities to enhance their academic achievements on Active Duty. So the likelihood is a 20-year veteran of our services probably has all the education they need, and they have a huge education benefit. I cannot think of a better reward to people who have served their country than to say: Let's make this benefit available so you can educate your children. Let them choose the States that highly subsidize so they get more bang for their buck. Senator Graham covered the fact that we put the responsibility for private schools to fill the gap on the private schools. We say to an institution: Do you know what. You are willing to retire debt for low- income Americans today. Well, let's see what type of commitment you are going to make for veterans, people who are part of the GI program. Senator Webb's bill says to the school, Harvard, Yale, Duke, schools that have $35,000 tuitions: Do you know what. We are only paying $5,000 in North Carolina, so, Duke, if you get one of these, that $20,000-some difference--$25,000, $30,000 difference--for every dollar you put in, the Federal Government is going to put in. What I say, in the legislation, to Duke is: All right. We are putting $14,400 in the pot for that GI. The difference is indebtedness at the end of his career. If you are willing to retire 25 percent of it, then we are going to put an extra $1,000 in the pot. If you are willing to retire 50 percent, we are putting $2,000 in the pot. If you are willing to retire 100 percent of the debt, we are going to put more money into the pot. We are not going dollar for dollar because I do not think that is our responsibility. There has to be a side of the academic institutions that is willing to also recognize the service of our men and women in uniform. We were denied the opportunity to have a vote on a piece of legislation earlier today. It is a rule of the Senate that you can offer a motion to table an amendment. What does tabling an amendment mean? It means we were denied the opportunity to vote on a real education package for our service men and women. What is the reason somebody would do that? Well, fear that we were going to win. Fear that enough Members would look at it and vote for it on the merits of the legislation, that we would win. What is the likelihood we are going to have an opportunity to offer our amendment? Probably none. Because the Webb amendment is going to be masked in an emergency supplemental that is going to be made up of war funding, funding that most Members--this one has no idea what other earmarked programs Members of the Senate are going to stick in it or the House of Representatives. I would say to my colleagues, we ought to vote against the entire package, except for war funding. We ought to come to the floor. We ought to have a side by side: the Webb bill, the Graham bill. We ought to debate it on the merits, but we ought to take into account the needs of our military. To ignore retention, to ignore the tools the military needs to make sure our Nation is secure and strong, is absolutely ignorant. Now, it may be before it is over we are able to influence the authors of the other legislation to put transferability in theirs. But I have to say to my colleagues that the structure is fundamentally flawed. I am the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs' Committee. Currently, the GI bill is administered partly out of DOD, partly out of the Department of Education, partly out of the Veterans' Administration. We have a Veterans' Administration today that is challenged to process the amount of disability claims, the appeals to disability claims, the appeals to medical services that are delivered. Now we are saying let's create a big new program and let's dump it in the Veterans' Administration and let's ask them to run it. How incredibly insensitive to the work that is currently going on but how insensitive to the needs of our veterans who are injured--those who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, those who transition out of Active Duty to veteran status who need a Veterans' Administration that is 100 percent focused on the delivery of health care, the processing of disability claims, and making sure every veteran is matched with a check that they need for their livelihood. Now we are going to say: But we want you to now run education. We want to take the Department of Education out of it. We want to take DOD out of it. We want the Veterans' Administration to be responsible. Millions and millions, hundreds of millions of dollars is going to be needed to administer this program, hundreds of millions of dollars. Forget the fact that to write the regulations out of a new agency is probably going to take well over a year. That is why the Webb bill is not proposed to start for some time after this body passes it. I am sure we are going to have ample time to talk about the education benefit for our military members. I am not sure we are going to have an opportunity to have a choice. I am convinced people asked me to come here and serve to represent North Carolina to make sure we have a choice, and that it wasn't a choice between something and nothing, but that it was a choice between something and something. Every Member of the Senate--100 Members--should have the opportunity to come to this floor and to offer what they think is the solution to a problem. Not on this. We tried to do it because we didn't think we would get an opportunity, and instead of getting an up-or-down vote on a very important piece of legislation that provides and extends and revamps the GI education benefit for our military, it was decided that we were all going to have the opportunity to table consideration. I am not sure that is why we were all elected to be here. I think to some degree it shows what is worse about the institution that we are not willing to tackle. This is the institution of great debate, and when we have big issues, we run from the debate, hoping that the American people aren't looking, hoping that nobody will read about what we have done, that nobody will see the missed opportunity. I will tell my colleagues, our service men and women aren't going to miss this one. It is not going to be over with a simple tabling vote. This is something that will continue to educate the American people and, more importantly, the men and women who put on a uniform and never ask why but go exactly where our Commander in Chief asks them to go. I urge my colleagues to pay very special attention as we go through the debate on this legislation. Ask yourself not only is it right, ask yourself are the consequences of what we do the consequences that we would want to have happen. If there are unintended consequences to this, the general public of young people who are looking at higher education as an absolute necessity of their livelihood in the future are disenfranchised in some way by this. If servicemembers aren't allowed to extend an education benefit to their children or to their spouse, and it just goes away, have we really done our job? I think the answer is going to be no. So I encourage the leadership in the majority to give us an opportunity to have a fair up-or-down vote. Give us the opportunity to compare two pieces of legislation. Nobody should be scared to do that. Let America decide based upon their representatives in the Senate which one better fulfills the promise we have made to the men and women who serve but, more importantly, what upholds the structure of higher education in this country and doesn't disenfranchise or disadvantage any student now or in the future. I am convinced we can only achieve that if we recognize a benefit that is uniform and equal across the board, not one that is determined by where you choose to go to school, not a benefit that is determined by where you choose to live, but a benefit that fulfills every promise that we are going to provide an education and put some degree of individual responsibility on how that is exercised. I am convinced that for those who may choose a community college versus a 4-year university, the savings they have should be savings they extend to their children and to their spouse. That would not happen under the current Webb bill; it will just go away. They will miss out on that opportunity. They will never know that unless we are willing to have a debate on this floor. They are never going to know it unless we are provided the opportunity to present them with a choice between something and something versus something and nothing. I thank the Chair for the time extended to me. At this time I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, anniversaries are usually a time of joy, a time to celebrate, a time to remember happy occasions in one's life. This weekend, my sons celebrated Mother's Day with my wife, their mom, Brooke. Many know this is the 100th anniversary of Mother's Day. Speaking of their mom, she and I will celebrate our 26th wedding anniversary this August. It is an anniversary that is very special, and it is something I intend to celebrate every day. But today we mark an anniversary that is more troubling than celebratory. Today marks the 300th day since Judge Robert Conrad was nominated to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals--the 300th day. Judge Conrad was nominated in July 2007. It has been almost a year, and he still has yet to receive a hearing from the Judiciary Committee. Advise and consent. I don't think it said 300-plus days; it says advise and consent. This is an anniversary of which I personally am not quite proud and, quite frankly, of which the Senate should be ashamed. We are telling the American people we are unable to fulfill one of the most important responsibilities for which they elect us as Senators. We are telling the American people that we cannot follow through with our constitutional responsibility of advise and consent on Federal judges. I am not going to spend my time today pointing fingers and placing blame on one party or another. That would be a waste of everybody's time. I am here for quite the opposite reason. We need to encourage our fellow colleagues to better utilize our limited time left in this Congress and start confirming judges to the bench. The unfortunate reality is that our Federal bench is suffering and, most importantly, vacancies on the bench hurt the American people. I have often said there is no area of daily life that is not affected by judges. Judges make decisions every day that have a long-lasting and significant impact on the entirety of the American people. Unfortunately, our society has become so extremely comfortable with, if not aggressive about, filing lawsuits, and we must try to reduce that problem in and of itself. But in the meantime, we need to fill these lingering vacancies in order to give judges on the bench the help they desperately need to adjudicate their rapidly increasing caseloads. Today, we have a great opportunity for this Congress to stop pointing fingers, to stop placing blame, and reverse the dreadful trend of underperformance on Federal judges. I encourage my colleagues to rise above the bickering and come to an understanding that confirming judges should be about legal qualifications and experience. Judge Bob Conrad now waits for the 300th day for his nomination for a judiciary hearing. He is clearly qualified to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is almost impossible to think of a more qualified candidate. He has an excellent reputation as a knowledgeable and fair district court judge from the Western District of North Carolina. Bob has twice--twice--been confirmed by the Senate, once in 2001 to become U.S. attorney and once in 2005 to be a U.S. district court judge--a candidate that has been confirmed by this body twice who cannot even get a Judiciary Committee hearing. Bob received a unanimous--let me repeat that--a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating by the American Bar Association. Not every nominee receives a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating. Bob's nomination to the Fourth Circuit Court has been endorsed by the Charlotte Observer, the Asheville Citizen-Times, and the Charleston Post and Courier. It is not the papers keeping him out of office; it is the Senate and, specifically, the Judiciary Committee. Judge Conrad's nomination is also extremely important to North Carolina. My home State must get more representation on the Fourth Circuit Court. Our State has just one seated judge, even though we are the most populous State in the circuit. Judge Conrad has been nominated to the Fourth Circuit Court seat. This is a seat that has been vacant for 14 years. Let me say that again. This is a judicial seat that has been vacant for 14 years. This Senate cannot fulfill its obligations to put a judge on this bench. It is now a judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of the Courts. I could continue to list Judge Conrad's outstanding credentials and qualifications and, more importantly, why it is critical that he be confirmed to the Fourth Circuit Court, but really, this distinguished body could use a little less talk and a little more action. It is time to act on this nomination. It is time to give Judge Conrad a hearing and a vote on the Senate floor. He has been waiting patiently for over 300 days, and that is inexcusable. Some may think they are helping their political party by blocking qualified Presidential nominees from being considered for the Federal bench, but what they are really hurting is our country and the American people. It is not just 1 or 2 of us or 100 U.S. Senators who suffer from this lack of progress, it is all of us. I remind all of my colleagues that they should not celebrate this 300-day anniversary; they should act on it, they should act to get Bob Conrad a hearing and to get him a vote on the Senate floor. I ask my colleagues to do this for Judge Conrad, but, more importantly, do it for the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Chairman Akaka is a good man and a fair man. He is a wonderful chairman. He has produced a bill which has a tremendous amount of good. I am in deep respect of Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. This country owes both, as well as all World War II veterans, a tremendous thanks for their commitment. As Senator Stevens mentioned ages, it made me think, on Monday my dad turned 87. He fought in the Pacific. He did it because it was the right thing to do. I believe protection of our veterans is the right thing to do. Let me, if I may, focus everybody on what S. 1315 is. I ask a chart be put up. One might hear this debate and think this is all about a special pension for Philippine veterans who live in the Philippines who have no service-connected disability. There is a difference. This bill is so much more. It is $332 million in Philippine benefits, of which $221 million is devoted to a new special pension that does not exist. There is a term life insurance program for our veterans of $83 million over 5 years and $326 million over 10 years; state approving agencies, $60 million; mortgage life insurance for our veterans, $51 million, retroactive traumatic injury, on-the-job training benefits, supplemental insurance, housing grants for burned injured, auto grants for burned injured, COLA for surviving spouses, and much more. I wanted to highlight those items that are mandatory spending in the bill. This is a good bill. Regardless of the outcome of my amendment, I want my colleagues to support final passage of this bill. Having said that, I highlight the fact that we do have a difference as it relates to the pensions. Before I get into the specifics of why I believe, not as some have portrayed it that I believe it is too costly, I believe that, one, there was not a promise made. We did not imply it. It was not an impression that people had; that, in fact, when we look back at those individuals who served in this Chamber who made the decision on the Rescissions Act, they looked at the history very well. They looked at what Franklin Roosevelt said and the documents that backed it up. They looked at what General MacArthur said and the documents that backed it up. And they felt this was not the way for us to go. Mr. President, I wish to yield a short period of time to my colleague, Senator Cornyn.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I yield the Senator what time he may use.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. Let me highlight one area from these 11 points of the substance of Senator Akaka's bill, and it is the creation of a new special pension of $300 a month to Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines who have no service-connected disability and who did not serve in the United States services. Now, the reason I want to draw that distinction--and I will ask for the next chart--is there are four groups of Filipino veterans. It is important to understand that the group we refer to as Old Scouts enlisted in the U.S. Army. Because they enlisted in the U.S. Army, they are extended every benefit a U.S. veteran has. We had three other groups, though, the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, Recognized Guerilla Forces, and New Philippine Scouts. Of those three categories, none were enlisted in the U.S. service. Senator Inouye was correct, they were under U.S. command. There were a lot of people in the Second World War who were under the U.S. command. But the official account lists this as the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines. Now, the question that is at the heart of the matter here is: Were Filipino veterans promised VA benefits? According to the information provided in a 1998 congressional hearing, the Department of the Army examined its holdings on General McArthur and President Roosevelt and found no reference by either of these wartime leaders to post-war benefits for Filipino veterans. Let me draw a distinction. For any Philippine veteran who has a service-connected disability, they are compensated today, whether they live in the United States or whether they live in the Philippines. For the soldier in the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, those whom Senator Stevens referred to from the Bataan Death March or side by side in the foxhole, and who had a service-connected disability, they receive compensation from the U.S. Government today, and have continually. The reference that they only got part of what the U.S. vet gets is, in fact, accurate. Because of the difference in the two economies, it was structured to recognize their economy and not to provide more than an equal share to U.S. veterans. In this bill, we make a change, and that is why, when I alluded to the fact there is $320 some million designated for Filipinos but only $221 million designated to the special new pension, the other $100 million Senator Akaka has recognized that 50 cents on the dollar is very difficult to substantiate. What he does is he raises it dollar for dollar with U.S. veterans. Let me put that in perspective. For a 100-percent disabled veteran in the Philippines today, it means today they get $1,200 a month. After this bill passes, they will get $2,400 a month, in an economy where the average annual income is $2,800 a month. We will take every servicemember, regardless of which of those three branches of the commonwealth army they served in, and they will be in the elite class from a standpoint of income. I support that. I support Senator Akaka's change in the law. But the root issue raised is: They were promised something more. Was it Congress's intent to grant full VA benefits to Filipino veterans? First, it is important to note that it was a 1942 VA legal opinion which concluded that Filipino veterans had served ``in the active military or naval service of the United States'' and on that basis were eligible for VA benefits. Senator Carl Hayden, who in 1946 was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, had this to say about VA's legal determination regarding Philippine Army veterans during the committee proceedings in March of that year: There is nothing to indicate that there was any discussion of the meaning of that term, probably because it is generally well recognized and has been used in many statutes having to do with members or former members of the American armed forces. It would normally be construed to include persons regularly enlisted or inducted in the regular manner in the military and naval service of the United States. He goes on to say: But no 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 of the laws enacted by Congress for the benefit of veterans to indicate such intent. He goes further to say: It is certainly unthinkable that Congress would extend the normal meaning of the term to cover the large number of Filipinos to whom it has been suggested that the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1940 applies, at a cost running into billions of dollars, aside from other considerations, without some reference to it either in the debates in Congress or in the committee reports. Maybe this is the debate in Congress. This issue was raised in 1997, and in June of that year, when the Clinton administration was asked to testify on this, Stephen Lemons, Acting Under Secretary for Benefits, was quoted in the hearing as saying this: History shows that the limitations on eligibility for U.S. benefits based on service in these Philippine forces were based on a carefully considered determination of the government's responsibilities toward them. They testified against extending that benefit. In 1948, there was a House hearing, and in that House hearing there was an exchange between witnesses and Members of the House. There was a Father Haggarty who came to testify, and I read from the official accounts of that hearing. This is Father Haggarty: It was constantly promised, as the ambassador mentioned, in radio broadcasts, official American broadcasts to the Philippines in the war. It was definitely promised by General McArthur, General Wainwright, and also it has been acknowledged, I believe, that the Philippine groups recognized the guerrillas, acting as members of the United States Armed Forces, were entitled at one time to complete GI bill of rights. That is, they were included. I believe that is correct, and were later left out. Mr. Allen, Member: May I say there, Father, I know you are sincere about it, but I think you are in error. Because there are three or four of us here on the committee who were present when the GI bill was written, and I don't think that ever entered into it. So the individuals who wrote the GI bill in a committee hearing are verifying that was not even discussed, much less their intent. There are a number of documents that have existed as committees have held hearings over a period of time from the Department of the Army, from the Roosevelt library. There have been searches everywhere to try to find any documentation that would lead one to believe that there was a promise, that there was an insinuation, and the fact is, whether it is Roosevelt documents, whether it is Army documents, whether it is General MacArthur's personal documents, no one can find anything, other than ``we believe this existed.'' What factors influenced Congress's decision to limit certain VA benefits to Philippine veterans in what is known as the Rescissions Act of 1946, where it was made perfectly clear in legislation that this was going to happen? Well, you have heard it from the authors of the GI bill. ``We never intended this to be extended.'' The Congressional Research Service testimony in April of 2007 provided the following conclusion based on its review of the congressional history. It seems clear that Congress considered the Rescissions Act in the context of providing for the comprehensive economic development of the soon to be sovereign Republic of the Philippines. President Truman, in signing the Rescissions Act, reminded everyone in the United States that we shared responsibility with the Philippine Government for the welfare of Philippine veterans, but recognized that certain practical difficulties exist in applying the GI bill of rights to the Philippines. Again, the second President in the line suggesting that this was not the intent. As I said earlier, we extend disability compensation to any Filipino veteran, regardless of Commonwealth Army or of the U.S. Army, who was injured in service or disabled because of service. Now, what have we done? What specifically has the United States done since we left the Philippines? After the war, the U.S. provided $620 million--in today's dollars that is $6.7 billion--for repair of public property and war damage claims and assistance to the Philippine Government. VA compensation for service-related disabilities, as I said, and survivor compensation was also provided, and again paid at a rate that reflected differences in the cost of living. We are changing that. We are raising it to 100 percent. The United States provided $22.5 million--$196 million in today's dollars--for the construction and equipping of a hospital in the Philippines for the care of Filipino veterans. In addition, the U.S. Government provides annual grants to support the operation of the hospital, which was later donated to the Philippine Government. The grants continue to exist today. Survivors of the Filipino veterans who died as a result of service are eligible for educational assistance benefits. Filipino veterans legally residing in the United States are eligible for full-rate disability compensation, full-rate cash burial benefits, full access to the VA health care clinics, medical centers, and burial in our national cemeteries. I am not sure anybody can leave this debate and say we have not done our share. So we are back to one issue: the special pension. We are back to the creation of a special pension for some number of Filipinos who served or were affiliated with the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines that would place them in a pension category of $300 a month. I will ask for the last chart to go up. I made this case 2 days ago extremely hard, and I want my colleagues to listen. The proposal to raise $300 is on top of what is currently paid by the Filipino Government to every veteran. That is $120 a month. That $120 a month in the Philippines puts every veteran 400 percent above the poverty line in the Philippines. Let me put it in perspective to the United States. For our veterans who receive a special pension because of income, that pension equates to 10 percent above the poverty line. Today, the $120 a month equates to 400 percent above the poverty line. What we are being asked to do in 1315, and what I am cutting from 1315 and allocating to our veterans, is $300 a month, which would raise the Filipino veterans to 1400 percent over poverty. Mr. President, that is 27 percent over the median annual income of a Filipino. I might once again say, for U.S. veterans under special pensions, they are 10 percent above poverty; they are at 21 percent of median income--under, not over. This one change, this one creation of a new program, puts the whole group at 1400 percent over the poverty line and 27 percent over the median income. This is on top of the $1,200, if they are fully disabled, that they are currently getting each month. What Senator Akaka will do in his bill, and I support, raises that to $2,400 if they are 100 percent disabled. I say to my colleagues, we are not here to create another class in the Philippines. I hold Senator Inouye's and Senator Stevens' belief that we owe these individuals so much--but so do we to our veterans, to my dad who just turned 87 who fought in the Pacific. Senator Craig, in the committee markup, attempted to reach a compromise. He offered $100 versus $300. It was rejected. The chairman knows I do not have any ill will over that; a decision was made, and it was rejected on a party- line vote. I hope--and I say this to the chairman today--I hope this is the last time while I am here when the Veterans' Affairs Committee brings a bill to the floor that does not have the bipartisan consensus that history has proven, and I think he and I can accomplish that. We inherited something on which we were incapable of coming to some compromise, so we have a tough decision to make. That decision today is about, frankly, our veterans or their veterans. Are we going to enhance the benefits for housing grants and for car grants or are we going to create a new special pension for Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines who have no service-connected disability? It is an issue of, Is it equitable? What my amendment does is simple. It eliminates this new special pension and takes the $221 million and increases the grants that we have in adaptive housing for our burned veterans and for car grants. We respect and we are grateful for the brave Filipino fighters, but this is about today, not yesterday. It is about the needs of our veterans, the equity of our generosity. It is not about broken promises, it is about recognizing priorities. It is not about young Members looking and saying that is too much money. No, it is about young Members looking and saying: You know what, when you can't fund everything you have to prioritize. I urge my colleagues, I implore my colleagues, support my amendment and make sure we put our priorities in the right place. Then vote for passage. Support the chairman in his efforts for passage and know that each one of us will have upheld our responsibilities to our warriors, those individuals who protect us every day we are here. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I yield back any morning business time.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I will wait until tomorrow during the 1 hour of debate to take up the amendment.

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

Mr. BURR

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

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Continuing my reservation, Mr. President, as I understand the leader, it is not the minority and it is certainly not me who is suggesting that tomorrow be unproductive; it is the majority leader's desire to change the Senate rules and to move a vote on cloture on the Ledbetter issue from 1 hour after we come into session to 6 o'clock tomorrow night to accommodate people who are not in Washington, supposedly when the Senate is in session. I think the Senator makes some great observations about the debate today. I agree with him about the heroism of Senator Inouye and others, Senator Stevens, who performed bravely in the Pacific in World War II, and the debate we have had today. If we have learned anything, it is that we have brave Senators, but we also have the history to look at as to whether this benefit was intended for these individuals. That is why the debate was so important that Senator Reid and I discussed earlier yesterday and we continue now. But with the insistence that we change the Senate rules and delay the vote on Ledbetter, I would have to be opposed to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, let me say this. It is disingenuous to come to the floor and suggest that I, or any Member of the minority, have stood in the way. I have stood in the way when the conditions to move forward were such that it diluted the minority's ability to represent its Members but, more importantly, the American people, and to limit us in the time of debate and in the amount of amendments. Yes, sir, it was not offered to have a full and open debate. We are in the process--and, as I said, I urge my Members to vote for cloture. I am sorry we have to have the vote, but that is the only thing that assures us the ability to have the time to debate these issues. I think what you will find is how much we are all in agreement, which is 98 percent, and there is 2 percent on which we have a difference. I respect the chairman and other Members who believe a special pension should be set up for Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines and have no service-connected injury. But I disagree with that as a priority over our guys. So I plan to offer an amendment that I have never had an opportunity to offer which embraces 98 percent of what the chairman has in his bill, but it elects to prioritize our soldiers in enhanced benefits over the $221 million that is now devoted to Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines and have no service-connected injury. I believe it is time for us to stand up for our guys versus that select group to whom there was never a promise made. I yield the floor.