Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have a deep respect for my chairman and friend, Senator Akaka. I think the Senator has suggested that over the course of the last half year we have had some disagreements. I don't expect him to know everything that has been communicated to staff or that my staff communicated to his staff. The reality is that we are here today, and we each respect each other. We are both honored to serve in the Senate. We both have the same responsibility to the same people--and that is the American taxpayers--to make sure we are fiscally responsible but, more importantly, that we are prudent, that we prioritize things where they are needed the most. At noon today we will have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1315. For one, I have mixed feelings about where we are in the process. I share the frustrations of Chairman Akaka. The proud tradition of the Senate committee on Veterans' Affairs has been to write laws that improve benefits and services for our veterans. Those laws typically enjoy bipartisan support. As a result, the committee's bills have almost always passed by unanimous consent. In fact, I asked the Senate Library to confirm that for me. Since 1990, there have been only two rollcall votes on bills reported from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs: the first in the 102d Congress which cleared by a vote of 99 to 0; the second was in the 105th Congress and cleared by a vote of 98 to 0. There were no amendments that received rollcall votes on either of those bills. This tells me that Republicans and Democrats have always been able to reach a compromise on committee bills out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. There has been no need for floor debate or rollcall votes when it comes to the veterans bills. The norm is to find a common agreement before moving forward, even on policy issues with which one side or the other may not agree. This has changed during this Congress with the unprecedented vote on cloture that we will have today. The chairman, in the spirit of our relationship, sent me a letter on, I believe, the 10th of the month requesting that we work on this. The next day, the majority leader of the Senate filed cloture. I am not sure how quickly I am supposed to jump through the hoop for him, but I didn't do it fast enough. I say that with the knowledge that the chairman and I both have that we are not in charge. We don't always make the decisions on the course the Senate will follow. Let me briefly outline for my colleagues the key disagreement that has held up this bill for so long; namely, the provision that seeks to use $221 million over the next 10 years to create a special pension for Filipino veterans who have no war injuries, are not U.S. citizens, and who reside in the Philippines. There are four groups of Filipino veterans. Here is a chart. There are the old scouts, who enlisted in the U.S. Army. They are veterans of the U.S. Army through and through. You see in the benefits that is exactly what is displayed. We have the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, Recognized Guerilla Forces, and new Filipino Scouts, individuals committed to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and, yes, at times were under U.S. command. The important thing to notice is our disagreement is with the pension for nonservice-connected disability and the death pension for survivors. It is the $221 million that is suggested to create a special pension for 13,000 individuals whom I do not dislike. I do not want any Member of this Congress to think in any way that I devalue what they did. But I have researched this in history, which we will get into over this debate, that Congress never intended for something such as this to be extended. I, again, have profound respect for the World War II service of Filipino veterans. Their contribution to victory in the Pacific is a matter of historical record. We honor them--I honor them--their service, their sacrifice. We have good friends in the Philippines. But the issue at hand is not the merit of the service rendered by Filipino veterans. The issue is whether creating a special pension for them in the Philippines is responsive to the following questions: Is it the right priority in time of war when the needs of our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are so great? Two, is it appropriate policy, given the purpose of VA pensions and the vast differences in the United States and Filipino economies? And last, is it fair to U.S. pension recipients from whom this money is taken to pay for this special pension in the Philippines? Let me ask that another chart be put up because I think it is absolutely crucial that we understand exactly what we are talking about in a $300, or $221 million, special pension. For a U.S. veteran, if they qualify for a special pension, we are going to get their annual stipend to $11,181, which is 17 percent of U.S. median income. We are going to take American veterans slightly above the poverty level. If it is a married veteran couple, we are going to get them to $14,643, which is 22 percent of the median income in the United States and slightly above the level of poverty. Special pensions were designed to make sure a veteran was out of poverty. We were not putting them into the middle class in the United States, but we were getting them out of poverty because that was the right thing to do. If it is a surviving spouse in the United States, they get a payment of $7,498, which is 11 percent of the median income in the United States. Today in the Philippines, the Filipino Government provides $120 a month pension for these 13,000 individuals Senator Akaka is targeting. I am not taking into account the $120 a month that the Philippine Government is providing for each one of these 13,000. But if they are a single veteran in the Philippines with the stipend that Senator Akaka's bill has, we will provide $3,600 a year, which will be 87 percent of the median income of the Philippine economy. If you add in to that number the $120, we see they far exceed the median income of the middle class of the Philippines. If, in fact, it is a married couple, the stipend from the United States in a special pension for a Filipino living in the Philippines with no service-connected injury is $4,500, 108 percent of the median income of a Philippine family; in the case of a surviving spouse, $2,400, or 58 percent of the median income. It is important to understand that the VA pension is designed for veterans who have no service-related injuries and who are poor, according to the U.S. definition of poverty. The maximum VA pension payable to a U.S. veteran puts them 10 percent above the poverty threshold and 17 percent of median income. The Philippine Government, as I said, already provides a monthly pension to Philippine veterans, putting them at roughly 400 percent over poverty with the $120 pension that the Philippine Government provides, and 35 percent of the average income of the household. Adding an additional VA pension on top, as considered in S. 1315, would put a single Filipino veteran at roughly 1,400 percent over the Philippine poverty level. What are we talking about in simplistic terms? We are going to allow a U.S. veteran to get slightly over the poverty level. The percentage was 10 percent. But we are going to create a special pension for Filipinos who live in the Philippines and have no service-connected disability that is going to make their percentage over poverty 1,400 percent when U.S. veterans are at 10 percent over the poverty line and 21 percent above the average household income. A VA pension benefit is not designed to put a veteran in the middle class. It certainly does not in the United States. I do not believe it is our responsibility to do it in the Philippines, and I do not believe in this time of war that it is a priority of this country. It is meant to ensure that no wartime veterans suffer the indignity of poverty, whether you are in the Philippines or whether you are in the United States. We have defined that in the United States as 10 percent above the poverty line. I can argue that is not good enough, but I can certainly make the case that going to 1,400 percent above the poverty line is not right. It is not the right policy, and it is certainly not the right priority. Creating any new pension benefits for Filipinos in an effort to rectify what some call an injustice would only serve to create a new injustice for U.S.-based veterans because of an enormous discrepancy in the two Nations' economies. As I said, I have deep respect for Senator Akaka. We will have a spirited debate, I am convinced, over the next 2 days, 3 days--whatever our leadership decides. That is where it gets out of our hands. I am willing to do it. I have done my homework. I am willing to get into the 1946 Senate hearings when the Senate debated an act where they took benefits away because they researched it to find out if we promised veterans' benefits be extended. And the court's interpretation was they extended it and, quite frankly, the Congress in 1946 legislatively took those benefits away that the court had awarded. I have Senate hearings from 1948. And in the 1990s, I have the Clinton administration that came to this body and lobbied that this was not the right thing to do; they were not supportive of it. I am willing to share that information with all our colleagues, and over the next couple of days, I think everybody will get a great history lesson on what happened with our decisions and who has testified since 1944 to the Senate about this issue. I do not expect any American who listens to be less than educated on whether this is the right move or the wrong move. But I also believe my colleagues will recognize the fact if we are establishing 10 percent above poverty for U.S. veterans and we are down here talking about a special pension to individuals who live in the Philippines who have no service-connected injury that is going to be 1,400 percent over poverty, this is the wrong thing for the Senate to do. Mr. President, I am going to yield to my good friend and former ranking member of the committee. But I do want to say before I yield to him, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the cloture motion. I want to proceed. I want to debate this issue. I want to make sure every Member of the Senate has an opportunity to hear the full breadth of what has happened since 1946, and I am prepared to do exactly that. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not plan on objecting, if the 5 minutes is to come out of the majority's time for the debate--which the time is split between now and 12 o'clock between the majority and minority--if Senator Klobuchar's time comes out of the majority's time, fine.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I would love for that.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. BURR. We had a unanimous vote earlier today to proceed to the bill. I believe it has been a productive day. I believe Members have learned a lot in the debate, and I think it is important to get the history of the issue on the record for all Members. Having said that, I am prepared to begin consideration of the bill and for the amendment process to begin as well. Under the rules, my understanding is the cloture vote on Ledbetter would proceed an hour after we convene. Now, I am not in a position to delay the Ledbetter bill, but I am in a position to agree to go immediately in the morning to consideration of S. 1315. The way the majority leader has worded his unanimous consent request would push off the rules of the Senate, requiring that the Ledbetter vote be in the morning. So, therefore, I have to object.

Mr. BURR. May I ask a question of the majority leader?

Mr. BURR. My understanding in the unanimous consent request is that as to the rule that would require us to vote on cloture on the Ledbetter issue 1 hour after we started business tomorrow, under the unanimous consent request, the majority leader has asked that to be postponed until 6:30 tomorrow night. Am I correct?

Mr. BURR. Six o'clock. I apologize.

Mr. BURR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia. I think my colleague put it very well. The big question is, has the U.S. Government met its obligation to Filipino veterans? I think that is at the heart of what some Members have raised with respect to this special pension. Let me say, Filipinos who fought under U.S. command in World War II were no doubt invaluable to the victory in the Pacific. Yes, they were U.S. nationals at the time, but they were also on a timetable to transition to a newly independent, sovereign Philippine Union. Thus, their welfare has always been a shared responsibility between the U.S. Government and the Philippine Government. Here is what the U.S. taxpayer has already funded to meet United States commitments to the Filipino veterans. After the war the U.S. provided $620 million--that is $6.2 billion in today's dollars--for repair of public property, war damage claims, and assistance to the Philippine Government. VA compensation for service-related disabilities and survivor compensation was also provided, paid at a rate that reflected differences in the cost of living in the Philippines. Let me suggest, about this cost of living consideration, the first time it has been raised is not today by me. It was actually applied in the 1940s, at the conclusion of the conflict, to the United States. No. 2, 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 and treatment of Filipino veterans. In addition, the United States provided annual grants for operation of the hospital which was later donated to the Filipino Government. The grant assistance continues to this day. Survivors of Philippine veterans who died as a result of service are eligible for educational assistance benefits, paid at a rate that reflects the differences in the cost of living. All of a sudden we have second reference to payments being made in the Philippines at the conclusion of the conflict where the cost of living differential was considered in what the United States payment was. Filipino veterans legally residing in the United States are entitled to a full rated compensation, full rate cash benefits, full access to the VA health clinics and medical centers, and burial in our Nation's national cemeteries. In addition to that, I have mentioned another hospital at Fort McKinley that was donated to the Philippine Government. The big question for Members of the Senate and members of the Roosevelt administration, the Secretary of War at the time, was how can we best help the Filipino people? How can we best help these veterans? It was to reconstruct the country. It was to create an infrastructure where health care could be delivered. It was to repair roads. It was to repair the infrastructure so the Philippines post war could have an economy, not dissimilar to the Marshall plan in Europe where the United States and others--primarily us--funded the reconstruction of much of Europe. That is because we knew a country without an economy, without the ability to manufacture something, without the ability for its people to earn something, probably would not survive. We made the right decision. We pumped into the infrastructure billions of dollars by today's standards. We gave them hospitals. We built them hospitals. We gave them equipment. We bought them equipment. Today we still provide a grant assistance to the Philippines for the care of Filipino veterans. Some might say if we had a different administration maybe things would be different. On July 25, 1997, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs heard testimony of Stephen Lemons, Acting Under Secretary for Benefits, in opposition to the bill granting full VA benefits to Filipinos. It was not the Bush administration, it was the Clinton administration. This has spanned 50 years. Think of the numbers of administrations. The quote then was: Its enactment would upset decades-old policies which have authorized some but not all VA benefits based on this service. I go on: 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 responsibility towards them. I also continue: Current law appropriately recognizes our two nations' shared responsibility for well-being, and should not be changed as proposed by this bill. The Clinton administration lobbied Congress not to do what we are considering doing in S. 1315. What is it? To extend a new, special pension to Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines, who have no service-connected disability, that, along with the Philippine pension that is currently in place, would put these individuals at 1,400 percent over the poverty line and 27 percent over the average median income of the Philippine people. Now, I went a little bit further. I checked out this book from 1948. It is called House Committee Hearings. I want to turn to one section I think is pertinent to this debate. Because 1946 was the year we passed the Rescissions Act. The Rescissions Act revised the Court's interpretation of what were VA benefits. This sheds a tremendous amount of light on the difference between my understanding and what those who were charged with investigating U.S. obligations at the time were. There was a Father Haggerty who testified in front of the committee. These are Father Haggerty's words: It was constantly promised that as the Ambassador mentioned in radio broadcasts, official American broadcasts to the Philippines during the war, it was definitely promised by General MacArthur, General Wainwright, and also it has been acknowledged, I believe, that Filipino groups recognized the guerillas, acting as members of the United States Armed Forces, were entitled at one time to the complete GI bill of rights; that is, they were included. I believe that is correct, and were later left out. Mr. Allen, a member of the committee: May I say this, Father, I know you are sincere about it. But I think you are in error there because there are three or four of us here on the committee who were present when the GI bill was written. And I do not think this was ever entered into. The chairman: ``It did not come up?'' Mr. Allen: ``The Filipinos never entered into it.'' Father Haggerty: ``I am also speaking of the impression that they all had.'' Mr. Allen: ``We are not responsible for impressions, of course.'' I said earlier I have tremendous respect for my colleagues who are on the opposite side of this issue with me. I am sure their recollections-- they served, I did not--are probably as accurate as Father Haggerty, who in 1948, voluntarily, I think, went in front of a House committee, probably the veterans committee, along with an ambassador, and the Ambassador swore: ``This is what I understood.'' Father Haggerty said: This was what I--I heard it, I heard the American Government say it. I heard General MacArthur say it, General Wainwright say it. Well, I said earlier to those who were listening, we had testimony from the Army that said: We looked at General MacArthur's records. We looked at President Roosevelt's records. There was never an intent for this to be extended. Now, what we find in the Congressional hearing in 1948 is those specific questions were asked by members, and Father Haggerty swears this was accurate, that we said this, that this was the intent of the GI bill. And Mr. Allen, a member of the committee: May I say this, Father? I know you are sincere about it. But I think you are in error. You are in error because there are three or four of us on this committee who were present when the GI bill was written, and I do not think this was ever entered into. I am sure as we go through this, we are going to find others who come to the floor and say: Listen, I know this was the intent of Congress. It is probably the way they envisioned it today. But when you go back to the actual records of the 1940s, when you go back to the 1948 testimony, when you go back to the 1946 rescissions bill, when you go back to 1944, and Senator Hayden, this has been explored over and over and over. In every case, with different members, they came to the same conclusion. Let me read from a more recent committee hearing, the committee hearing that took place last year with Senator Craig, who was then ranking member of the committee, as he talked to Mr. Ron Aument. He said: Ron, let me take off from where the chairman has gone with a couple of questions. If the committee were to structure a pension benefit for those residing in the Philippines that had the same purchasing power that a pension recipient in the United States had, what would be the equivalent maximum pension benefit? Have you ever done any calculations based on

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have deep respect for Senator Inouye, who just spoke. He is passionate. There is no American who can look at Senator Inouye and not see an American war hero. He has committed so much, and his perspective on history is important for all of us to recognize. Before him, Senator Stevens spoke, one of the foundations of the U.S. Senate. I find myself troubled to some degree that I am at odds with both of them on this issue. I want Senator Inouye to know how much I respect him and how much research I have done on this issue, and I will try to make my case for why I do not think this is a priority but to do it in the most respectful way I possibly can to individuals, such as Senator Inouye, who have so much invested not just in their knowledge but in the commitment and sacrifices they have made. Mr. President, we started debating S. 1315 earlier today. Where I ended off in that earlier debate was pointing out to my colleagues and the country how this special pension, a special pension we intend to provide to a very small group of Filipino veterans who were not enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces but were under control of U.S. forces and command of U.S. forces--I just want to point this out to everybody: Currently, the Filipino Government provides a $120-per-month pension to this select group of individuals. That pension puts every veteran at 400 percent over the poverty line in the Philippines. What S. 1315 attempts to do is to create a new special pension funded by the American taxpayers that would take the average income of this select group of Filipino veterans to 1,400 percent above the poverty line in the Philippines. Now, let me put that in direct comparison to the United States. We have special pensions in the United States that apply to our veterans because we believe it is important to say no veteran should live in poverty. Our commitment is such that it is roughly over $10,000 a year. Let me compute what that $10,000 means relative to the poverty line. It means they are 10 percent above the poverty line in the United States. So with all due respect to my colleagues, I am supposed to come down here on behalf of my constituents, my taxpayers, my veterans, suggesting there is equity in providing a 1,400-percent pension stipend for Filipino veterans over the poverty level but only 10 percent for U.S. veterans? Well, I cannot do that. That is why I am at odds with some of the people whom I really love and respect in this institution. As I said earlier today, I have done a tremendous amount of research on this issue because so many people have suggested with a high degree of certainty there was a promise that was made. Well, I cannot find that promise. According to information provided at a 1998 congressional hearing, the Department of the Army examined its holdings on GEN Douglas MacArthur and President Franklin Roosevelt and ``found no reference by either of these wartime leaders to postwar benefits for Filipino veterans.'' Now, I am going to ask that another chart be put up that displays the difference in Filipino veterans because I think most would believe there is one target we are after. What you see here is four different groups. You see Old Scouts. These are the Filipino soldiers who signed up with the U.S. Army, and they served side by side in the U.S. Army. Today, they receive every benefit, except for those living in the Philippines and outside of the United States. And medical care is only provided at a clinic that the VA has in the Philippines. Every other benefit they get. They are getting pensions. They are getting death pensions for their survivors. They are getting burial benefits. They are getting everything because they were part of the U.S. Armed Forces, even though they are Filipino. The other three categories you see: the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, recognized guerilla forces, New Philippine Scouts--yes, they were under the command of U.S. forces. Everybody in the Pacific was under U.S. force command. But they actually enlisted in the Filipino forces. We never solicited them. They could have joined the U.S. Army. They chose not to. The reality is that just about every benefit, except for two, was extended to even the three groups that are the Filipino veterans. The two glaring exceptions are pensions for nonservice-related disabilities--nonservice-connected disabilities--and the death pension for survivors. So what I want everybody to understand is, in a bill that totals over $900 million--that, I might add, we are funding. We are offsetting it because a court ruling took this away from U.S. veterans. We took money away in benefits from U.S. veterans. We are now using this $900 million the courts extracted to say we are going to enhance the benefits for our veterans here at home. As a matter of fact, over $300 million of it is life insurance changes we are making. And, yes, our veterans are benefiting from it. But $100 million of that $900 million is going in this category to beef up our commitment to Filipino veterans. But there is $221 million that is going to create a special pension, a pension for those Filipino troops who served as part of the Filipino military who were commanded by U.S. forces and never injured in combat. Let me say that again: Filipinos who live in the Philippines who were under U.S. command who served in the Filipino Army and have no service- connected disability. This is not about disabilities. This is about a windfall. This is about a windfall that exceeds what our standard is here for our veterans, which is 10 percent above poverty, and currently the Filipino veterans are over 400 percent above poverty; and some in this institution suggest that the right thing for us to do is to raise their pension to 1,400 percent over the poverty level in the Philippines. Some might say: Was it Congress's intent to grant full VA benefits to Filipino veterans? 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, chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations, had this to say about the VA's legal determination regarding Philippine Army veterans during committee proceedings on March 25, 1946: 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. I go on: 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. This is our colleague in 1946. I go on: It is certainly unthinkable that the 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. Now, I am quoting from the history of our congressional hearings, of our Senate hearings, in 1946, from the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations. Again, we have the Department of the Army examining the records of GEN Douglas MacArthur. We have the Department of the Army examining the papers of Franklin Roosevelt. They find no references by either of these wartime leaders to postwar benefits guaranteed to Filipinos. We have the records of the congressional hearing, and Senator Carl Hayden says: I have looked. There is nothing that suggests that this promise was ever made. Yet individuals come to the floor and they make this claim. Now, I am convinced that--we are dealing with something 50 years later--it is very possible that memories are not exactly the same, that one person's recollection may be different today than it was in 1942 or 1944 or 1946. All the basis we have is to go back in history, to look at the documents, to see what the commitments were, and, more importantly, to try to get inside the heads of our colleagues then, to understand: If it was not in the letter of the law, what was the intent? Senator Hayden makes it very clear: It is not only not the letter of the law, it is not the intent of the Congress of the United States. Now, what factors influenced Congress's decision to limit certain VA benefits to Filipino veterans in what is known as the Rescissions Act of 1946? You see, in the United States we have the rule of law. When the courts determined, under their understanding, this set of benefits would apply, Congress actually passed legislation to rescind what the courts had awarded. Again, quoting Senator Hayden: The GI bill of rights is intended to benefit an American who served in the armed forces and who, upon discharge from the service, returns to civil life in the United States, where American standards of living prevail. . . . Whenever any part of the GI bill of rights is extended to Filipino veterans, the cost of living in the Philippines and other economic factors must be given careful consideration. Let me go back to the chart I referenced. That is all we are applying. That is the only standard I am asking my colleagues to look at: that when we apply what sounds in the United States like a meager amount--$120 a month--what we are talking about is 400 percent over the poverty level. When we talk about increasing by $300 a month the pension, what we are doing is we are taking potentially a Filipino veteran who is already 400 percent over poverty, or more--assuming they have no other income--and we are putting them at 1,400 percent over poverty, which puts them way above the middle class of the Philippines. This is a tremendous windfall when you look at it from the standpoint of the size of the Philippine economy. Mr. President, in total, S. 1315 proposes about $900 million worth of spending over 10 years. I will ask that a chart be put up so everybody can see what S. 1315 does. I think many have construed that I am opposed to S. 1315. I am the ranking member. I only have one piece I am opposed to. I have been accused of holding the bill up since last August. I have tried to negotiate this one piece since last August. What you see there is the Filipino piece, which is No. 1 on the list-- $332 million out of $900 million. The actual pension issue is $221 million. There is the term life insurance program, $326 million for our kids; the State approving agencies, $60 million; mortgage life insurance, $51 million. You can go down the list. It is $909 million worth of benefits. I am only addressing a small sliver. It is a quarter of it in dollars, but it is a small piece. I am for everything else. If you take the Filipino special pension out, today I will propose to pass it under unanimous consent. I made the offer to the majority leader yesterday. This chart lists all of the provisions of S. 1315, from the most expensive provision to the least expensive provision. Again, you can see that the Filipino piece is the most expensive provision in S. 1315. During a time of tight budgets, and when multiple commissions have recommended that Congress focus our resources to improve the benefits of our U.S. returning combat veterans, it is plain wrong to put the needs of Filipino veterans, with no service-related injuries, who are residing in the Philippines, ahead of our own service-injured men and women returning from war. I am not sure it is defensible to suggest that we are going to institute that special pension, which means we are not going to divert that $221 million to our men and women. I will have a substitute amendment tomorrow. The only change in my substitute amendment is that it keeps intact everything but the special pension. It diverts the special pension and it enhances the ability for housing upgrades for our disabled troops to be made from $50,000 to $55,000. It provides additional grants for disabled veterans who need upgrades to their vehicles that they drive; it will up the special grants by $1,000. We are going to address additional burial benefits. We are going to address some discrepancies in education benefits for our Guard and Reserve. We are using the $221 million solely to divert it to our veterans. Each of us has met with veterans organizations and constituents who have asked us to address the needs that exist in the veterans community, particularly the needs of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are defending us in the war on terror. The distinguished majority leader touched on this very point last Friday. Frankly, after reading his comments, I was hopeful he might support the amendment I am offering, the substitute amendment. On Friday, he talked about the number of Americans who died in Iraq. He talked about those who are coming home with physical and mental wounds. He made the following statement: At the height of this war, with soldiers being wounded every day and soldiers coming home from Iraq every day, we can't even get a bill to deal with their health to the Senate floor. All I have ever asked for is a fair opportunity to amend the bill and a fair length of time to debate the bill. The majority leader has to make decisions as to whether he files cloture motions. He has filed 67 of them, because 67 times they tried to short the minority on our ability to exercise the rights we have as the minority, which are not many. But 67 times it has been done, so 67 times he filed a cloture motion. That is part of leading; I am sorry. But don't suggest that the No. 1 thing that you are for is our guys, when $221 million of this is going to set up a new special pension fund for Filipinos, who live in the Philippines, with no service-connected disability. It is disingenuous. There is consensus in this body for everything else in S. 1315, except for one provision. We have tried for months to negotiate that one provision. For my colleagues who want to know why this bill has been at a standstill, it is because we have been trying to shift the money to our kids--our children and our grandchildren. At the committee markup last June, Senator Craig put forward an amendment to redirect the Filipino pension fund to other priorities. It was rejected on a straight party-line vote--another rarity in the Veterans' Committee. We don't have party-line votes in the Veterans' Committee. For some reason, this year we have now had them. In December, shortly after the Dole-Shalala disability commission recommended we improve a host of benefits for war-injured veterans, I offered another proposal to redirect the spending on pensions for Filipinos to higher priorities. It too was rejected. Any claim that there has not been an attempt to try to negotiate what is in this bill is ludicrous. I put that proposal in the form of a bill, S. 2640. We cannot hide from it. We will vote on it. Members will be asked to choose between our veterans and a 1,400-percent pension over the poverty line in the Philippines. That will happen tomorrow. This comes down to where our priorities are--the Senate and this Congress. I believe our priorities should be on increasing the benefits that apply to our guys. I believe that the substitute amendment I will offer that increases housing grants for profoundly disabled veterans who need their homes modified is important. It should be a priority. I believe the auto grants for profoundly disabled veterans who need the freedom of mobility to live independently is a priority. I believe improvements to the education benefits for returning Guard and Reservists is a priority. I am sad to say that we do increase the burial benefits. I am sorry it is a provision that people have to take advantage of. But burial benefit increase is a priority of this country. I believe all of these things are absolutely crucial. I met a veteran from North Carolina last year, Eric Edmundson. He needed a vehicle because of his disabilities. An unbelievable soldier; an unbelievable American. He will never fully recover. He will only be mobile with the help of the aids we can make available to him. The Edmundsons found an accessible van to accommodate Eric's injuries for $45,000. They had to pay $14,000 out of pocket. Can we put the need of that van for Eric Edmundson as a top priority? We can if, in fact, we shift the $221 million that is going to people who have no service-connected disability, don't live in the United States, aren't U.S. citizens, didn't serve in the U.S. Army, but were under U.S. command during World War II. We are not going to be able to do it if, in fact, we don't shift the money. My amendment would increase the auto grant benefit to $16,000 and, more importantly, in the case of the housing benefit, the auto benefit, and the burial benefit, it would index it so that annually we don't have to go in and legislate an increase. It increases with inflation, so for the first time what Congress does is actually thinks about the future and makes sure our veterans receive a benefit that is reflective of the inflation in between times that we have legislated. Creating a pension in the Philippines, I suggest, is simply bad policy. I will make a comment on why the Philippine pension is not only the wrong priority, it cannot be justified as a matter of fairness. It is important to understand that VA pensions are designed for veterans, as I said earlier, to stay out of poverty. When we left the Philippines, we made some commitments to the Filipino Government. We transferred to them multiple hospitals and all the equipment that was in those hospitals. As a matter of fact, we granted them, at the time, a tremendous amount of money. That money, in today's standards, would be well into the billions of dollars. We didn't walk away and leave anybody without. We made sure that we rebuilt the country, but we also left the infrastructure that was most needed. Let me suggest to you that this pension creates a new inequity. There were a lot of troops in the Second World War under U.S. command. They might not have been a territory of the United States, but they signed up for their army, and they were under U.S. command. What is to keep them from claiming they are owed a special pension from the United States? They have never done it. These are the only ones who have. If you think of all of our global partners who could claim, based upon this precedent, quite frankly, it would be a difficult thing for this country to deal with. As I said earlier, this new spending is paid for by reversing the effects of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision for veterans' claims decision that granted extra pension benefits to elderly and poor U.S. veterans in a manner that was never intended by Congress. Let me explain in layman's terms what that means. The VA made enhanced payments to U.S. veterans--benefits that were never intended in the letter of the law or in the intent of Congress. When the courts determined that, they pulled back about a billion dollars from this country's veterans. It is that billion dollars that is used in the offset for the $909 million spending plan we have in front of us today. I may argue the court's decision, but to take money from veterans in the United States, who are slightly above the poverty threshold, and spend it on a new special pension for Filipino veterans, who are already 400 percent above poverty in the Philippines, is flat wrong. Let me say that again. What the court exercised was to take money away from U.S. veterans who are slightly over poverty, and I have said constantly what we do with special pensions in the United States, we get about 10 percent over the poverty line. We have Filipinos today at 400 percent over the poverty line, and the debate we are having is whether we go to 1,400 percent over the poverty line. One of the largest service organizations, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, agrees. It passed a resolution in August urging Congress to use funds from reversing the effects of the court decision on U.S. veterans and not to create new benefits for Filipino veterans. If my colleagues adopted that approach, as many of us have urged from the beginning, S. 1315 would have become law in August 2007. The chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is a good man. He is a friend. He sent me a letter on April 10, asking for my cooperation on a way forward with some of the contentious issues in S. 1315--primarily this--but on the very next day the majority leader was already talking about filing a cloture motion on the bill. I was perplexed a little. On the one hand, I had an offer to negotiate a way forward; but on the other hand, I have a cloture vote being proposed. I am not sure where the disconnect is. I don't like to look back. I believe we should look forward. I am prepared to go to the bill. I believe it would be extremely healthy for this Congress and for the American people to be educated on exactly what this is about because this truly does beg where we place our priorities from the standpoint of the Senate. Are our priorities to fund our veterans, our kids with service-connected disabilities, or is our goal to set up a special pension for non-U.S. citizens who live in the Philippines, with no service-connected injuries, and to divert that money away from our kids? The answer is pretty simple for me. I believe our priority is to make sure our troops get it. I believe our priority should be to make sure our soldiers get whatever they need, to make sure the Eric Edmundsons of the world have the van they need for their disabilities, to make sure those who need adaptive housing because of their severe disabilities from war have the money they need to upgrade their house so they can maneuver in it. I daresay, a $1,000 increase on the auto grants and a $5,000 increase on the adaptive housing is not enough. I can tell my colleagues, we need to do more, and I am committed to say today I will do more. But how are we going to do more if we show something as irresponsible as a decision to spend $221 million that we have taken from U.S. veterans, away from people slightly over the poverty level, to allow it to go to individuals who are going to be above the middle class in the Philippines? How can any veteran in America believe we are serious about prioritizing how we spend money in the future if, in fact, we display this type of judgment and willingness to extract money from our veterans to create new programs? I am fairly confident we have a number of Members who would like to speak on this bill this evening. It is my hope we will have an opportunity to turn to consideration of the actual bill and to entertain any amendments our colleagues plan to offer on this bill. When the majority leader left the floor earlier today, he said it was his request that we move as quickly to conclusion of this bill as we possibly can. I have given my colleagues a small snippet tonight of what the history I looked at says of our leaders at the time. There was no documentation, there was no hearsay, there was no intent of those leaders or the Congress to actually extend a benefit such as those that have been described by some of my colleagues. Clearly, this Congress, as any Congress of the future, could elect to add a benefit. For 50 years, the Congress could have added this benefit. The further we get from the 1942 act and the interpretation by the Court and the further we get from the 1946 Senate hearings that initiated the Rescissions Act that took the Court's interpretation of what the Filipinos were due away, I am convinced it requires somebody to do their homework and come to the floor and remind us of where our priorities are in this country; that until we have more than our kids need, the right priority is to spend it on ours and not necessarily on somebody else's. I reiterate the fact that our veterans and our VA pension is designed for veterans who have no service-related injuries and who are poor, according to the U.S. definition of poverty, and the maximum VA pension payable to a U.S.-based veteran puts him at 10 percent above poverty and at 17 percent of the median average household income. Again, the Philippine Government currently provides a $120 pension to this brave group of Filipino veterans, putting them at roughly 400 percent of poverty in the Philippines and 35 percent of the average household income. Adding an additional VA pension today, adding the pension that is already in S. 1315, would put a single Filipino veteran at 1,400 percent of the Filipino poverty level and 21 percent above the average household income. Think about that. Our special pension is going to put them 21 percent over what the average Filipino makes annually. If the argument I have made is not credible from the standpoint of prioritizing our spending, that it should be our kids and not necessarily their veterans, then I ask my colleagues: Is this our responsibility? Our responsibility is to take individuals and to put them 21 percent over the average working Filipino? I do not believe so. I do not believe that is a good thing. I believe it is wrong. But that is what we are being asked to do. I am not sure the VA was intended to take people and put them in the middle class or, in the case of the Philippines, to put them above the middle class. It was to make sure our soldiers and their soldiers do not live in poverty. Clearly, they are doing better than we are today, and I challenge us to do more about ours, or maybe it describes for us the choice we have before us, that this would be ill-advised for us to proceed forward. Since World War II, the United States of America has provided a tremendous amount to Filipino veterans. Congress authorized the construction and equipping of a hospital for the care of Filipino veterans. The Filipino Memorial Hospital Center VMMC was dedicated in 1955 and turned over to the Filipino Government free of charge. Congress authorized the transfer of another hospital located at Fort McKinley in the Philippines, including all the equipment contained in the hospital, to the Republic of the Philippines. Congress provided that annual grants be made to the Philippines to purchase equipment and material for the operation of these hospitals. Congress also authorized disability compensation, survivor compensation, funeral and burial benefits, dependents' educational benefits at the rate of 50 cents on the dollar for individuals residing in the Philippines and full-dollar benefits for those residing in the United States. Full eligibility for VA health care was provided to Filipino veterans legally residing in the United States. We have done a lot. I am sure it is not as much as some want. We are faced with a job where we have people come in and ask every day--there is something everybody needs. I learned very early in life that the toughest thing to learn in life is to say no because that means somebody is upset with you. But you cannot go through life without learning the word ``no.'' You cannot do it in business, and you clearly cannot do it in politics. Maybe that is why Charles de Gaulle said politics is too serious a matter to leave up to politicians. It requires a participation level of the American people. My hope is, over the next day, 2 days--whatever the leadership decides is the future of this bill--that we will have an opportunity to educate the American people and, at the same time, we will educate Members of the Senate that no matter how far you want to look back, no matter how much you want to try to speculate what went on, that when you stick with the written word, when you look at what President Roosevelt said, when you look at what General MacArthur said, when you look at what the Senate did and Senator Hayden--and they were there at the time and the Senate was charged with determining whether this benefit was appropriate--that from all the information in real time they looked at, their decision was the Rescissions Act, to take away what the courts had awarded. Now, 50 years later, we are being asked not to apply what they thought was correct but to apply what we think today. Even if you use that standard, I daresay you cannot make a claim that a special pension that puts Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines, with no service-connected injury, 21 percent over the median income in the Philippines is the right thing for us to do. I know there are several Members who are going to come over shortly. I expect Senator Chambliss any minute. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Let me assure the majority leader, as ranking member of the committee, I do not intend to vote against cloture. I intend to proceed to the bill. I intend to offer an amendment that strips out the provision of $300 of a special pension that I think prioritizes that group above our veterans who are coming back. My amendment would hold everything else in Senator Akaka's bill in place, but we would also make additions by using that $21 million for additional funding for our troops who are coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope the majority leader would at least consider voting for my amendment when it comes up. We have a rich history on this issue. It starts with the conclusion of the Second World War, when the United States made some very important gifts to the Philippines--the total of two hospitals, equipment, grants to rebuild the Philippines--to make sure those who served were in fact taken care of. I might also add for the majority leader, incorporated into Senator Akaka's bill, which is a very good bill on balance, there is only one area that we have any problems with. We hold intact those Filipino veterans who are in the United States receiving full VA benefits. Those who are outside the United States, living in the Philippines but with service-connected injuries, they receive compensation. It is those who live outside the United States, in the Philippines, with no service- connected injury whatsoever, that creating a special pension is not the right thing to do, as we have troops who are coming back at this time. I pledge to the majority leader my willingness to move forward to consideration of the bill--to have a spirited debate, I am sure, but clearly to try to address what I think are the priorities, or should be the priorities, of this Senate, and that is to focus on our troops.

Mr. BURR. I have had the amendment ready to go for months. I think it is a shame the majority in the committee was not willing to talk about any changes to the bill. Now I think we are to a point where it is healthy for the Senate in total to debate the merits and priorities of our country. Were Filipino veterans promised a VA benefit? According to all the information I have researched and the information provided in 1998 at a congressional hearing with the Department of the Army--it examined its holdings of the Douglas MacArthur and President Franklin Roosevelt papers and found no references by either of those wartime leaders to postwar benefits for Filipino veterans. Let me be very specific. This bill, S. 1315, does two things: No. 1, it enhances some benefits for our veterans. I think that receives unanimous support in the Senate. But, two, it diverts $221 million over the next 10 years to create a special pension for a very specific slice of Filipino veterans, those who live in the Philippines, those who had no service-connected injury, those who have gone post the war with the understanding that the United States stepped in by gifting two hospitals, by gifting medical equipment, by gifting everything, and rebuilding the Philippines. At a time of war where we are fighting on two fronts, Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe the important thing and prudent thing is to take the $221 million, over 10 years, and devote it to our men and women who are coming out of combat. S. 1315 has the wrong priorities. So I put together a substitute proposal, S. 2640. I will offer that as an amendment at the appropriate point in the debate. In that bill, we do one specific thing: We increase what is in S. 1315, minus the special pensions, and we propose increasing housing grants for profoundly disabled veterans who need their homes modified to accommodate their disabilities; we increase the auto grants for profoundly disabled veterans who need that freedom of the platform, the platform for mobility to live independently; it improves the education benefits for our Guard and Reserves; it increases the burial benefits to lessen the financial burden on families of deceased veterans. I did not come over today to debate the merits of S. 1350. I see the chairman, Chairman Akaka, is here. The chairman has known since last year that I had problems with that portion of the bill, and we have tried to work out the differences. But as I said earlier, for it to be communicated that we have reached this point because of stall and delay and because we are against things, it is flatly wrong. I am for 99 percent of the bill. Drop the part that prioritizes someone else in front of our veterans, and I am ready to go forward, I am ready to pass it by unanimous consent. But by the same token, I believe when given the responsibility to make sure our veterans are taken care of, to make sure that those with severe disabilities are taken care of, to devote $221 million to a new special pension, I believe, is the wrong priority at this point in time. I believe we should look at the history and find out: Did we make a commitment? Well, I cannot find that. I cannot find where we promised somebody something we have not fulfilled. Tomorrow, I will take the opportunity to go through a very indepth bit of research, not just done by me but done over the years that goes back to 1946 in great detail; looks at what the promises were that were made by the United States; but, more importantly, again, the generosity already displayed by this country to the Philippines to reward them for their participation, and, by the way, our help to liberate their country from the siege of an enemy. I am convinced the right thing to do is to prioritize that $221 million for our troops, for our kids from Afghanistan, for our kids from Iraq, to make sure that those who have paid a sacrifice, and in some cases the ultimate sacrifice, are the beneficiaries of this money. I am committed to come to the floor and debate, as I have made a promise to the chairman. I am not going to block the motion to proceed. By the same token, I am not going to vote for limiting the amount of time Members want to spend on this because I think it is too important. Our veterans deserve as much time as it takes for us to debate where our priorities on money are. If at the end of the day this body votes we send it in the form of a special pension to Filipinos in the Philippines who have no service-connected injury, I will live with that. But I will not live with it by agreeing to less than the amount of time that is needed to debate an issue about the future of our kids, our service personnel, the men and women who put on a uniform and risk their lives every day. I believe they should sit at the top of the list. And S. 1315 does not put them there. S. 1315 puts at the top of the list a new special pension program for people who have never had a service-connected injury. I am as sympathetic to those who fall into the category of having helped us. I might mention again, the Filipinos who live in the United States who fought in the Philippines for us, we take care of; we have integrated them fully into the Veterans' Administration. They receive every service our veterans do. To those Filipinos who live in the Philippines who have service-connected injuries, we have made sure compensation is in this bill to take care of them. But for those who do not have service-connected injuries, I cannot see where they fit at the top of the list of $221 million and our kids go below it, as it relates to what they need for the severely disabled injuries they have been faced with. I have a number of soldiers in North Carolina, at least they are stationed in North Carolina, that fall into this category. When we see Eric Edmundson's family spend $47,000 on a van, and $14,000 of that comes out-of-pocket, I have to ask: Where are our priorities? Where are the priorities of the Congress in defense of these kids? Well, they are in $221 million getting ready to go to the Philippines. That is where they are. That is the debate we are going to have over the next several days. If it takes a week or if it takes a month, then we will have that debate. At some point, we will take a vote. I believe the American people will see the advantage, the need, to make sure the No. 1 priority is our kids in uniform, our veterans who come back who will be serviced by this very important piece of legislation. I am committed to Chairman Akaka that once we can dispose of the issue of this special pension, I am more than willing to vote for the rest of the bill because it is a good bill. It brings some needed benefits to our veterans. It never should have been locked up for the length of period this was. But make no mistake about it, no matter how good a bill is, if you want to structure it in a way that debate does not flourish in the Senate, then we have done an injustice to the American people. The most deliberative body in the world is supposed to be one that you are not corralled into agreeing to a certain amount of time to debate on an issue; it is where everybody's voice is heard, it is where every bit of information about an issue can be presented. It is where charts can display what words cannot explain. That is what the next several days will be about with S. 1315. I am convinced that at the end of this process, not only will Members in this body be enlightened by what we are able to talk about, but the American people will be enlightened, and hopefully this body will vote, hopefully in the majority way, that the priority, the No. 1 priority is our men and women in uniform when they come home.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I would like to ask the majority leader before he leaves the floor--I know he has a very busy schedule--the majority leader alluded to a bill on which we will take up a cloture motion tomorrow. I want the majority leader to know before he leaves the floor that the only thing that is contentious in the veterans bill that he has referred to is a new special pension that has been created in this bill of $300 to Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines, who have no service-connected injuries. If that were stripped from the bill, then this bill is one that I believe we could pass by unanimous consent on the Senate floor. In the absence of that----

Mr. BURR. I share the leader's frustration and do not think, in that case, cloture was necessary. But with the restrictions that are placed on me as ranking member, that I can only agree to a bill if there are no amendments and there is a limit set of debate time and I have to speak for 48 others who might not share that limited debate time or a set amount of amendments, I think the leader knows that is something that is impossible for me to do and impossible for me to suggest to my leadership.

Mr. BURR. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss S. 2674, a bill I introduced to improve and modernize the disability system of the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs so that it meets the needs of both our older generations of veterans and our wounded warriors coming home today. One of the most sacred trusts we make is the one with our veterans. Their sacrifices, and the sacrifices of their families, are inspiring. The desire to provide these heroes with the benefits and services they need and deserve is certainly something we can all agree on. With this sacred trust in mind, I recently introduced legislation to ensure veterans have a disability system that we can all be proud of--a system that is updated to reflect the modern day, is consistent, is not overly bureaucratic, and meets the needs of all generations of veterans. The challenges facing our newer veterans are apparent. Over the past few years, I have met with many young servicemembers, some from my home State of North Carolina, who have suffered devastating injuries while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost as remarkable as their courage and their can-do attitudes, is their outlook about the future. These wounded warriors rightfully expect that serious injuries should not prevent them from living productive and fulfilling lives. In fact, many want nothing less than to return to their units, and with modern medicine and technology, many are doing just that. But for those who are not able to continue serving, like Ted Wade from my home State, they deserve a disability system that meets their needs and expectations. We should be giving them--in a quick, hassle free, and effective way--the benefits and services they need to return to their full and productive lives. But, the need for an improved system became very clear last year, when news reports detailed how some seriously injured servicemembers at Walter Reed endured a lengthy, hard-to-understand, bureaucratic process to try to get their disability benefits. This left many injured servicemembers and their families frustrated, confused, and disappointed. It left our Nation angry and ashamed. Let me give you a brief idea of what an injured servicemember may have to go through. Consider a young soldier who is injured in Iraq and is no longer fit for duty because of his injuries. Before he can be discharged from the military, he may go through a lengthy, complex process with the Department of Defense to be assigned a disability rating between 0 percent and 100 percent. If the rating is high enough--30 percent or more--he will get a lifetime annuity, health care for his entire family, exchange and commissary privileges, and other benefits. If it is below 30 percent, he will get only a lump-sum severance payment. But there have been no bright-line rules on how these ratings are assigned. Each branch of the military has used different procedures, so servicemembers in various branches often receive different ratings even for the same injuries. After going through that confusing process, the injured soldier may then go through a similar bureaucratic process with the Department of Veterans Affairs to get a VA rating. That rating will determine not only the level of monthly disability compensation he will receive from VA, but eligibility for other benefits and services such as vocational rehabilitation and priority access to VA health care. As if all of that isn't confusing enough, both DOD and VA assign those disability ratings based on the same VA rating schedule, but the ratings are often different. And, there are complicated rules over how much of the benefits from DOD and VA the veteran may receive at the same time. If those watching today are as confused by that description of the process as I am, imagine what our veterans have to endure. On top of all that, the rating schedule used by both VA and DOD to determine who gets these critical benefits is completely outdated. This schedule was developed in the early 1900s and about 35 percent of it has not been updated since 1945. The schedule is also riddled with outdated criteria that do not track with modern medicine. Take for example traumatic arthritis. The rating schedule requires a veteran to show proof of this condition through x- ray evidence. But doctors today would generally diagnose the condition using more modern technology, like an MRI. Even worse, experts are telling us the schedule is not adequate for rating conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, which are afflicting so many of our veterans from the war on terror. Also, experts have told us that the schedule does not adequately compensate young, severely disabled veterans; veterans with mental disabilities; and veterans who are unemployable. So, it's completely understandable why so many veterans are frustrated and confused by this system. The question is: How do we fix it? To help answer that question, two distinguished commissions issued reports last year laying out the problems with the system and giving us a road map to a modern, more consistent, and simpler system. One commission, the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors, was chaired by former Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary Donna Shalala. The other, the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, was chaired by General James Terry Scott. Here are just a few examples of what these commissions found: Despite their disability systems' different intents, processes, and outcomes, DOD and VA use the same outdated rating sched- ule . . . . [which] has not been completely revised since 1945. [T]he policies and procedures used by VA and DOD are not consistent and the resulting dual systems are not in the best interest of the injured servicemember nor the nation. The purpose of the current veterans disability compensation program . . . is to compensate for average impairment in earning capacity . . . This is an unduly restrictive rationale for the program and is inconsistent with current models of disability. The goal of disability benefits should be rehabilitation and reintegration into civilian life'' but that goal ``is not being met. These two commissions strongly recommended that we need to: get rid of the overlapping, confusing roles of VA and DOD in the disability rating process; completely update the VA disability rating schedule; compensate veterans for any loss of quality of life, while also compensating them for any loss in their earnings capacity; and place more emphasis on the treatment and rehabilitation of injured veterans. As the Dole-Shalala Commission cautioned, ``We don't recommend merely patching the system, as has been done in the past. Instead, the experiences of these young men and women have highlighted the need for fundamental changes.'' What's interesting to note here is that similar changes to the system were recommended in 1956 by a commission led by General Omar Bradley. Back in the 1950s, the Bradley Commission wrote in its report: ``Our philosophy of veterans' benefits must . . . be modernized and the whole structure of traditional veterans' programs brought up to date.'' If my math is right that was over 50 years ago. Clearly, we are long overdue for some improvements. I believe the bill I introduced will start us on the right path to making this system more straight-forward, consistent, and modern. Let me give you an idea of what America's Wounded Warriors Act would do. First, the bill would simplify the DOD process and make it more consistent. Any servicemember found unfit for duty--regardless of the severity of the disability--would receive a lifetime annuity based on rank and years of service and would receive other retirement benefits, such as commissary and exchange privileges. Eligibility for TRICARE would be determined by Congress or DOD, after further studies on that issue. These changes would get DOD out of the business of assigning disability ratings, ending the duplicative system that now makes injured veterans get rated by both DOD and VA. It would also create a bright line rule on what benefits a medically discharged servicemember would receive. Different branches of the military would no longer provide different levels of benefits to servicemembers with the same injuries. Under my bill, veterans would receive both their entire DOD annuity plus any VA disability benefits they are eligible for. This would put an end to the confusing practice of offsetting some DOD and VA benefits. This bill would also help modernize the VA disability system. The VA's outdated disability rating schedule would be entirely replaced by a new schedule that is based on modern science and medicine. It will also take into account the impact that a disability has on both a veteran's average loss of earning capacity and loss of quality of life. As we now know, quality of life--time spent with family, community and nonwork activities--is also affected by disability. Shouldn't our disability system reflect the impact service-related disabilities have on those important aspects of life, too? Also, this bill would provide more emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation. Veterans discharged from service because of disability would be eligible for transition payments, either during the three month period following their separation or during a period of rehabilitation. These payments would help cover family living expenses, so an injured veteran would be better able to focus on rehabilitation, training, and getting back into the workforce. These are commonsense options and solutions for today's veterans living in the modern world. Lastly, I want all veterans, whether having served in World War II, Vietnam, or Afghanistan, to have access to an improved system. My bill does not distinguish between combat and non-combat injuries; does not leave the outdated rating schedule in place; and does not prevent veterans of any generation from choosing to join the new, improved system. Also, as recommended by veterans' organizations, my efforts were guided by the work of both the Dole-Shalala Commission and the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission. How will we actually accomplish the goals of making the system simpler, consistent and more modern? Under this bill, the Department of Veterans Affairs would conduct a series of studies and would send to Congress a proposal outlining a new rating schedule and the amount and duration of transition payments. To make sure these recommendations don't get put on a shelf to collect dust--as has happened in the past-- the entire VA proposal would be subject to an up-or-down vote by Congress. If these changes are enacted, it would eliminate the confusion and delay now caused by the overlapping VA and DOD functions and put a greater emphasis on the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. It would update the rating system to take into account modern concepts of disability and make sure that veterans are compensated for any loss in their quality of life. As a final note, I want to acknowledge that reforming the disability system may require a large, upfront cost. But, if we do it right, we will be making a real investment in the future of our nation's veterans. Given the character of the men and women of our Armed Forces, this investment will come with little risk and great reward. We cannot put this off for another 50 years and hope another generation will fix the disability system later. We have young men and women returning home from war with devastating injuries that most of us could not fathom enduring, let alone at such young ages. The sad truth is that, even though the disability system was already outdated more than five decades ago, Congress and past administrations have not made the necessary changes to keep pace with modern society, a changing economy, and new attitudes towards disability. I believe I have an idea why: This is really hard stuff. This is a complicated system and it is often easier to use band-aids and quick fixes to get us through times of crisis. But, the Walter Reed stories showed all of us last year that wounded warriors--those injured while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan--are the ones who pay the price for our inaction. And every day we continue to wait is another day they continue to pay that price. They deserve better. We need to listen to the wake-up call that the Walter Reed stories sent all of us. We must act now, and that is why I have introduced a bill that will update the system to meet the needs and expectations of today's veterans and does not leave tomorrow's veterans with a system that was already outdated before they were even born. Our veterans deserve a system that is more straightforward, up-to-date, and consistent and that is open to all. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to remember the ``call to action'' we received last year when serious problems were publicly exposed at Walter Reed, and I ask them to join me in improving the lives of our veterans.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his amendment. I want to make it clear to my colleagues in the Senate that you should not vote for this amendment. I will say that again. You should not vote for the Allard amendment. The amendment reflects the proposals that one candidate made in the Presidential race to, in a blanket way, spend $300 billion a year--the first year. We all know if you have 1 year of spending up here, all you need to do is multiply it by how many years you are going to watch it because you will end up close to what the total is. If you look at over a 5-year period, you are looking at a tremendous growth in spending. Now, this may be considered by some an economic stimulus package--I think that is probably the only way it could be billed--and that we are going to grow the size of the Federal Government through what they spend. That is not how I envision economic growth. I envision that when you fuel, through policies, the commitment by the private sector to invest in bricks and mortar and buy new equipment, to create jobs and hire our children and grandchildren, to continue to innovate to bring new resources to the marketplace and make sure the U.S. economy grows-- not the U.S. Government--I think if the American people wish for anything today, they wish we would slash the size of the Federal Government. They wish we would cut the number of employees and that we would actually take a look at the programs that the Federal Government has that we have funded--and that we created many times--that don't work today, and actually fix them and make them work or get rid of them. But, no, in typical fashion, every election year we say the Government is broken, this or that doesn't work, so let's create new programs. Let's not try to fix the ones that are there. Maybe they will just go away on their own. But they never do. Spending piles up and piles up. So there is a big difference as we go into this budget debate, and as we go into this election year. The question is, are you going to ask the private sector to fuel the economic growth? Are you going to ask the private sector to invest in bricks and mortar and job creation or are you going to let the Federal Government do it? Our track record in the Federal Government is not too good. Senator Obama's $300 billion spending proposal--in one year, again-- would cost more than 42 State budgets combined; 42 of the States in this country, in total, have a smaller budget than the $300 billion that Senator Obama is proposing to spend in the first year of his administration. Quite frankly, who will pay for the $300 billion increase in the size of the Federal Government, the spending and the number of employees in the Federal Government? The American people will, the middle class will. I think my colleague from Colorado said it very well--that even though the rhetoric says we are going to target those people at just the top of the income level, that Congress would need to increase taxes on the top 1 percent of taxpayers 57 percent, which would be a $40,000 increase, if you want to try to raise it just on the backs of the wealthiest or highest taxpayers. In all likelihood, the average taxpayer earning $62,000 a year would see their income tax rise $5,300 or 61 percent. That is how low you would have to go on the taxable scale to be able to raise the money you need to fund the $300 billion increase in the Federal Government. Let me put things into perspective. CBO said that President Clinton, in 1993, raised taxes in this country $240.6 billion over 5 years. The late Senator Moynihan, from New York, called it the ``largest tax increase in the history of public financing in the United States or anywhere else in the world.'' Now, what Senator Obama is proposing for a spending increase in 1 year is bigger than the 5-year increase that President Clinton imposed on the American taxpayer, which was the largest in the history of the country or, as Senator Moynihan said, anywhere else in the world. Senator Obama has promised to pay for this new record spending with tax increases on families making over $250,000 a year. That is a pretty attractive target, as we have learned. I think more Americans aspire to get there than worry about getting there. However, as my dear friend from Colorado points out, this increase would only yield $225 billion over 5 years, which is a far cry from what the amount is that we will need, which is $1.4 trillion. I will say that again. It is $1.4 trillion, which is required under the new spending program. So in typical Washington fashion, we have a proposal by somebody to spend $1.4 trillion and to pay for it in total with the taxes on just families making over $250,000 in income, which would equal $225 billion over 5 years. Somehow in Washington that is understood as a promise to pay for it in total--$225 billion collected in taxes and $1.4 trillion spent. I don't need to belabor the point. I am here to beg my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Vote against my friend from Colorado. Turn him down. America doesn't need us to spend more money. They need us to fix the programs designed to affect the American people today. We don't need to tax the American people more. We need to tax them less. We need to look at corporate taxes in this country and we need to reduce them. We need to look at health care and fix it. We need to look at education and we need to figure out how every child crosses the goal line of graduation on time. Government is not going to do that. Communities and the private sector are the ones that will invest in bricks and mortar and will create the jobs. If we create them here, it is not the job most Americans want. If we allow the private sector to create those jobs, the future of every child in this country is unlimited, only controlled by their commitment and their willingness. Let's make sure our investment is to make sure our policies support the private sector, our programs help the American people, and that we don't fuel the economy fictitiously by proposing that the Federal Government can increase spending and, in fact, balance it on the backs of a select few. It will be like every other tax increase. We will balance it on the backs of Americans who cannot afford any more taxes. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I wish to honor the life of Miss Eve Carson, student body president at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Miss Carson's life was tragically cut short on Wednesday morning. I send my deepest condolences to Eve's family, the Chapel Hill community, and all those who came to know of her service and compassion for others. Eve Marie Carson was born to Bob Carson and Teresa Bethke in Athens, Georgia, on November 19, 1985. She attended Clarke Central High School, where she served as student body president. Eve enrolled at UNC in the fall of 2004 as a recipient of the prestigious Morehead Scholarship. Miss Carson left an indelible mark on the university and its community during her 3\1/2\ years in college. Eve excelled as a student at the University of North Carolina. She was a political science and biology major and hoped to attend medical school next year. Miss Carson was a member of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society and served as a North Carolina Fellow. Eve was dedicated to helping those around her. She taught science at Frank Porter Graham Elementary School in Chapel Hill and tutored kids at Githens Middle School in Durham. She served as cochair of Nourish International, a hunger-relief group, and an assistant coach in the Girls on the Run of the Triangle, a character-building program. She studied abroad in Cuba and spent her summers helping others in Ecuador, Egypt, and Ghana. Her compassion and hard work seemed to know no bounds. Mr. President, Eve Carson was a special woman who will be missed. Her passing leaves a void in a community who knew her as an intelligent, hard-working, compassionate leader who loved helping others. Again, I extend my heartfelt sympathy to Eve's family, friends, and all those who benefitted from her compassion and service.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I echo the comments of my colleagues. Congratulations to John McCain and, more importantly, congratulations to Cindy McCain. Cindy has stood by his side every step of the way-- through good, when people wanted to write his obituary, and now in the glow of being the nominee. She is clearly a wonderful partner in this process. Many ask why John McCain succeeded. I would suggest it is because he loves America. He believes in America. He believes in the American people. He stated it in a real and personal way. But as my colleagues have highlighted, his background has set him up for this role at this time in our history. John is a man of consistency, so consistent, many times some of his colleagues have been critical of the fact that he is that consistent. But America is hungry for consistency. They are hungry for somebody to represent them who actually does what they say, means what they say, more importantly, takes on the tough issues. John is passionate, John is courageous. His passion comes through sometimes in a different way than many of us, but he is tenacious when he sets his mind toward a goal. I think we have seen that in this election cycle. John is stubborn and he is real. I think the most incredible thing about John McCain is: What you see is what you get. He has carried out straight talk with America, even when he went to Michigan and said things that were not popular. He has said about the war: I would rather lose an election than to bring our troops home with less than victory. Well, John McCain meant it, and he meant it because he understands the next generation is what the focus of his Presidency is about. I am convinced this body should be proud because the next President will be a Member of this body. I am excited and delighted for John and Cindy McCain because their quest to be the Republican nominee has been fulfilled last night. I certainly commend him for his tenacity and for his hard work as he has gone toward this quest. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, one of the most pressing issues in America today is: What will Congress do to address health care? The American people deserve a 21st century health care system--not just a delivery system of doctors and hospitals but a system that is integrated, one that recognizes society has changed. This body, several years ago, extended a new benefit to Medicare, where we covered prescription drugs in a health care delivery system that was created in the 1960s, when drugs were not a common treatment for disease. It took us until the 21st century to recognize that if we would enhance the benefit so we could match the disease with some of the breakthroughs, that the outcome was different, that Americans actually got better, that the cost actually went down because we eliminated the number of incidents. America's health is at risk. When I say America's health is at risk, I am talking about the physical health and the economic health of this country. It is impossible to believe that unless you transform health care so it works for everybody in this country that American business can be competitive in a global marketplace that is not coming, that we are part of today. Now, Republicans want to propose to this body and to America one main goal. That goal is that we are committed--Republicans are committed--to providing every American with genuine access to quality, affordable health care that protects the sacred doctor-patient relationship. This is what everybody thinks of when they think of a health care plan: health care coverage that recognizes them as an individual and coverage they need to provide security for their family. Let me restate it. We are committed to providing every American with genuine access to quality, affordable health care that protects the sacred doctor-patient relationship. Nothing else should get between that. It should not be determined based upon an arbitrary third-party reimburser or the Federal Government. The reality is, when we provide every American with this opportunity, we have a system that functions like the marketplace is designed. How do we get there? No. 1: access and choice. All Americans have a right to choose their doctor, to choose their hospital, and, I believe, to choose the health care plan they want, and, more importantly, they deserve. No Washington, DC, bureaucrat should deny that right. Americans like choice. We know that. Americans do not like to have one choice. They like multiple choices. As a matter of fact, when you have one, you really do not have a choice. Some politicians want to give America one choice. It is the debate potentially of this next election cycle. Let me teach America a new word. It is called ``universal control.'' Universal control: when one entity is in charge of the only choice, and now they control how they provide that; they control what it looks like; they control where you get it; they control what the cost is. All of a sudden, this innovative, creative health care system we have had in America--that has not worked for everybody because our target has not been to make sure every American is covered--all of a sudden it totally breaks down. Well, one health care package, one set of doctors, one set of treatments, one set of prescriptions is not what America is looking for. America is looking for choice. North Carolinians do not want one choice, and they certainly do not want bureaucrats in Washington, DC, defining what their choices are going to be. A majority of Americans are willing to pay a little bit more to have more choices. I strongly believe doctors and patients--not lawyers and bureaucrats--should have the power to make health care decisions. The challenge is that Americans believe that is the most important thing. Clearly, access to health care is directly dependent upon cost. Americans must have access and choice, but they also have to have affordable coverage. Republicans believe the best health care in the world is worthless if Americans cannot afford it, and I think we would all agree. It would drive down costs by giving Americans control over their own health care choices, making sure patients have the information they need to make good decisions, guaranteeing vigorous competition that benefits patients, and holding the entire health care system accountable to the patients' needs. You see, in many cases we have used Government as the accountability measure. We miss the boat. The accountability measure is making sure patients hold the system, patients hold the doctors, patients hold the hospitals accountable; more importantly, patients hold the insurers accountable. This belief that a patient cannot negotiate with an insurer--well, quite frankly, these days are over. We need to drive down costs. We need to give Americans control over their own health care choices. We need to make sure patients have the information they need to make good choices--the right choices for them, for their family, for their age, for their illness or their health conditions, and, more importantly, for their income, guaranteeing vigorous competition that benefits patients. The focus here is on patients, holding the entire health care system accountable to patients' needs. I would suggest if health care could be more like a television--with a television, you have real competition. You have a choice of over the air, you have a choice of basic, you have a choice of cable, you have a choice of cable with premiums, and you have a choice of DirectTV. In fact, with television, you know exactly what comes with each option. You know exactly how much it costs, and you know you get what you pay for. That can be the only reason that on-demand sports has become so popular. It is because when you want to watch a sporting event, and you see exactly what the cost is, you can make a calculation as an individual as to whether that is worth it to you. Americans should have all the competition, the choice, the control, and the information they need when it comes to health care decisions. So affordable coverage. Let me tell you a story. My oldest son is now 23. Shortly before he became 22, I was notified by the Office of Personnel Management in Washington that in the Federal Government, regardless of where you were in the Federal Government, your children, when they turned the age of 22, even if they were in school--which mine were--had to be dropped from your health insurance. Now, forget the fact--I can see the Presiding Officer is struggling with this. That does not save any money. You are exactly right. You are taking the healthiest of America, and you are taking them out of the risk pool that helps hold down the risk for us older guys who are more susceptible to disease. But somewhere the Federal Government got this idea that they are going to save money by dropping people when they become 22 years old--the healthiest of the American population. So I went through the realization that this is actually going to happen. There is no way you can change it. So I called OPM to say: Surely, you have negotiated coverage for our children. I would like something that resembles the plan I had with Blue Cross Blue Shield. They quoted me the exact same plan: $5,400 a year. Twenty-two years old, healthy as a bull, still in college, and all of a sudden, as a parent, I was strapped with the decision that for him to have coverage it was going to cost $5,400. If it was his decision alone, he would have said: No way. Affordability was not met from the standpoint of what he was getting in coverage for what it was costing. I did not stop there. I picked up the phone. I called the university he was at and found out a local insurer, insurance agent, had negotiated with Blue Cross Blue Shield coverage for kids who fell into this situation where they did not have insurance. I described to him the plan. He quoted me the exact same plan that as a Member of the Senate I had, which, before, my son was covered under, with the same deductible, the same copay, the same limits--the exact same plan. But this was negotiated by an independent insurance agent in Chapel Hill, NC, against the same Blue Cross Blue Shield that the Federal Government, representing 1.3 million employees, negotiated with; and on behalf of my son, he negotiated a cost of $1,500 per year--$1,500 versus $5,400, a fairly significant savings. We sit here and wonder: What can the American people do with the right information relative to the decisions they have to make as it relates to health care coverage? If it is that difficult to figure out how to have the coverage you need at the cost you can afford, envision how difficult it is for a patient without information to decide what type of chemotherapy they are going to take, when all of a sudden the doctor walks in and says: You have cancer and you are going to die without treatment. This is a difficult thing without the ability to go out and search for the information. The third item is quality care and prevention. Here is a unique word in health care, ``prevention.'' It is something that probably for decades we should have incorporated into the coverage each of us has. We believe in strengthening health care by providing consistent, dependable quality and promoting the principles of prevention. What is prevention? Let's change our habits. Let's educate ourselves. Let's do the things that keep us healthy. And let's actually pay annually to let somebody go in and see the doctor and make sure there is not a health condition they have that could be prevented, early, without the incidence of an inpatient stay in the hospital. We will harness the powerful promise of advanced research and modern technology to create innovative new treatments and breakthrough cures, promote wellness, and empower consumers with accurate, comprehensive information on quality health care that is available for them. Choice, information: I believe strengthening health care by providing consistent, dependable quality and promoting prevention is absolutely essential. Creating innovative new treatments and breakthrough cures: Let me ask my colleagues, if innovation didn't take place, what would the diabetics do today, those who currently have a diabetic pump that is implanted in their side, that automatically reads their blood sugar 24 hours a day, administers the insulin when they need it. No longer do they go through a finger prick. No longer do they get an inconsistent reading. No longer do they inject themselves later than they need to keep a balance. Why is that important? Because for somebody with diabetes who can constantly maintain their blood sugar at the right level, it means none of the horrors we heard about and saw and that many families lived with before when the management was not as precise. The result was, eventually they began to go blind, eventually began to have a toe, two toes, all their toes, a foot, a leg amputated because of the effects of diabetes. Forget the number of times the person might have been admitted to the hospital to get their blood sugar in balance so they could at least delay the deterioration. Now technology allows a diabetic to insert a pump and to keep a constant read and a constant regulation of their blood sugar. The net result is the system saves a tremendous amount of money. The individual saves a tremendous amount of money. The individual's quality of life is that much better. For a student who had diabetes, the likelihood was that they would never play organized sports because the demands on an athlete mean they have a blood sugar spike that is incredible, and without the ability to regulate that, it was impossible. Now kids are playing soccer at every age and running around with a pump that is automatically reading their blood sugar. How about for some of us who are a little bit older and we probably are susceptible--because we haven't done everything we should do regarding healthy habits, we are susceptible to high cholesterol. Where would we be without the pharmaceuticals' breakthrough of cholesterol drugs? I will tell my colleagues where we would be. We would be funding $8,000-plus bypass surgeries at an alarming rate that would bankrupt the system, both public and private. But today we have this little pill we can take. It doesn't take the place of exercise, it doesn't take the place of diet, but it certainly enhances our chances that we are not going to be selected to have bypass surgery, open-heart surgery; that we are not going to have the recovery time, the loss of productivity at work because innovation allowed us now to inject in that quality arena a different outcome based upon innovation. We want to promote wellness. We want to empower consumers with accurate, comprehensive information. The United States has the best health care system in the world. I will tell my colleagues, North Carolina is a big reason as to why health care is so good. We need to make sure quality stays high while improving the access. Congress needs to foster--not hinder--research and development of treatments and cures. I just mentioned prevention and wellness. Those words need to be the first thing Americans think about when they think ``health care'' or when they think ``doctors.'' Prevention and wellness. Doctors should be paid to help people stay healthy instead of just paying them to treat individuals who are sick. My final thought for this section: Patients should have as much information prior to using doctors and hospitals as they do prior to buying cars. What a novel idea. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is starting to provide quality, Web-based information about nursing homes and hospitals. The initiative needs to keep growing so all patients have the ability to research all aspects of health care. That happens in real time at the tips of our fingers. Access and choice, affordable coverage, quality care and prevention. The fourth piece--and we shouldn't be shocked because this is America--personal ownership and security. But this is something our system has never incorporated. We believe Americans should own and control their health care coverage and should have the freedom and the flexibility to take it with them when they change jobs, just like a 401(k). Hard-working Americans deserve the peace of mind to know the care they need will be the care they receive and that their financial security will be protected from catastrophic events. Americans will achieve this security and will receive better care if the health care system is highly personalized and guarantees patient control. What does that mean? With the right information, with the right resources, any American should have the ability to construct a health care plan that meets their age, their health, their income, and have the financial security of knowing they are covered. Some might call this ala carte, the ability to construct something that meets--for those of us who are over a certain age, we have probably already been instructed by our spouses that we have had all the children we are going to have. That is a little tough in this body because we have had some Members who had them at quite a late stage in life. But I fall into that category. I can't buy health insurance coverage that doesn't come with maternity coverage. I pay for it knowing I am never going to use it. Now, maybe I am helping to subsidize somebody else. But while we are here talking about every American being insured, the reason we are here is because that subsidy is going on today. It goes on in every company. In goes on with everybody who pays out of pocket. It is something that happens to each of us who have health insurance, and it is triggered by somebody who receives a service in health care and either won't or can't pay. So to recover the cost of the delivery of that benefit, hospitals, doctors, every delivery point in health care does what they call cost-shift. They charge that cost of delivering that service over to the people who have coverage or who can pay. When all of a sudden you have a goal and a commitment that every American is insured, the cost-shift goes away. What is the score on that? It is $200 billion a year. So that is $200 billion that today does not go to the delivery of one ounce of care. It is shifted to people who can pay or who are covered. All of a sudden now we know the answer to why health care increases at double-digit rates of inflation on an annual basis. It is because as the pool of uninsured continues to grow, the amount of cost-shift continues to grow, and the cost-shift is directly dumped on those companies that provide coverage for their employees, for us as individuals if we go to the marketplace and we buy coverage or to us who pay out of pocket when we access health care because it is shifted evenly across the system. Forget the fact that if we adopt this, if we achieve it, that, one, we have a more manageable system--a system, quite honestly, that incorporates access and choice, affordability, quality and prevention and wellness, personal ownership, and the security of knowing you have coverage. We drive the costs down for every American. The goal is to continue to have the best health care system in the world, to continue to drive innovation and medical breakthroughs, and to do it in a way that brings the overall cost of health care down. If we can begin to see the trend line on inflation and health care begin to go south, it is amazing what type of an incentive it will be to individuals who now engage in the prevention and wellness section and begin to look at ways that they can control the cost of their health care because it is now theirs, they own it, they have constructed it, they can change it as they need to, and--oh, yes, by the way, to accomplish this, we have to have 50 States that have high-risk pools that take those individuals with preexisting conditions, and we collectively buy their cost of insurance down to an equal amount for those of us who are healthy. A lot of States around the country currently do it. Mine just happened to pass it last year. We are late coming to the game. But the reality is that all 50 States should and will and have to do it if we want the system to work. There is a way to maintain the highest level of care in the world, the highest commitment to innovation and breakthroughs, to look down the road and know we are going to cure things tomorrow, that today there is only one outcome and it is to live. If we don't change and transform our health care system and begin to promote prevention and wellness and to drive the costs down, the first thing that will leave is innovation, the innovation that treats many of us today in a totally different way, with a multitude of options we never had. If, in fact, we don't begin to change this, the system will reflect one choice, one doctor, one hospital, one delivery port. I challenge my colleagues today that is universal control, control where one entity--the Federal Government--dictates where we go, who we see, what they are reimbursed for delivering the service, and the outcome will be the lack of innovation, the lack of breakthroughs, and no reason for the American people to make healthy choices and to engage in prevention and wellness. That is where we are. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will engage and encourage our leadership to have a healthy debate on health care. I haven't locked in to any prescribed legislation tonight. It is the principles of the Republican Conference that I am here to present and will continue to come back to the Senate floor to present. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: let's come to the floor. Bring your legislation. Let's examine it, let's debate it, let's let America see it. Let them be the judge. At the end of the day, it is the American people who will influence where this debate goes, and that is exactly who should influence it. They are the patients of the future health care system. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, a few minutes ago the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee came to the floor and talked about the history of a bill, S. 1315, the spirited debate we had in committee and the continued negotiations that have gone on since that markup. I am here to announce that today I introduced an alternative bill to S. 1315. I know I am joined by millions in America who also salute our Nation's veterans. These brave men and women and their families have sacrificed so much to defend our country and to protect our freedoms. As the ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I take very seriously my responsibilities to ensure that our veterans are getting the respect and benefits they deserve. This appreciation is the very reason why I wish to talk about the substitute to S. 1315. My bill is a commonsense alternative to an omnibus veterans bill that was reported out of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs last June contained over 35 provisions compiled from other bills. Unlike in past Congresses, S. 1315 does not enjoy the kind of customary bipartisan support that such omnibus bills have received in the past. Why is this? In addition to all the good things it would do for the veterans, this bill also is a vehicle for a provision that would take money away from helping veterans of the war on terror and instead send the money overseas. I am talking about a provision that would establish a flat rate special pension for World War II Filipino veterans who did not suffer any wartime injuries, generally are not U.S. citizens, and who do not even live in the United States. In a few minutes, I will talk more about the Filipino provision benefits and why it is wrong and the wrong priority at the wrong time. First, I wish to share some good provisions of S. 1315 which I have included in the alternative omnibus bill I have introduced today. S. 1315 has some very important provisions to help our men and women who have fought in the war on terror and should be passed as soon as possible by this body. It provides retroactive payments--between $25,000 and $100,000--to all disabled veterans who sustained severe injuries since the war on terror began. Currently, severely injured veterans can only receive this retroactive payment if they sustained their injuries in Iraq or Afghanistan. But if they were injured on the way to or returning from a combat zone, they are not eligible. This provision would correct that mistake. It also increases the amount of insurance coverage available to severely disabled veterans under the Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance Program. Additionally, it provides adapted housing and auto grants to veterans with severe burn injuries who require modifications to their homes or their vehicles. And it provides severely injured service men and women with housing grant assistance who temporarily live with family members while still on Active Duty. My bill would keep these provisions and other good provisions from S. 1315. So what would my bill do that differs from S. 1315? First, it would eliminate the provision that creates a special pension for non-U.S. citizens, Filipino veterans who live in the Philippines and do not have wartime injuries. This would free up over $220 million to spend on benefits for veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is important to note it would still provide over $100 million to grant full equity to Filipino veterans living in the United States and full disability compensation for those living abroad who have service- related injuries. Also, my bill would create savings by changing how S. 1315 would fund State approving agencies, the entities that accredit schools and training programs for VA education benefits. My bill would begin to transition these entities from entitlement funding to discretionary appropriations. Subjecting these agencies to the annual appropriations process would help make sure veterans are being well served by any funds spent on this bureaucratic function. My bill then takes these savings, the savings we have gained from eliminating this pension fund for non-U.S. citizens and Filipinos not injured in the conflict and it would provide funding to increase the specially adapted housing grants for severely disabled veterans from $50,000 to $55,000 and for less severely disabled veterans from $10,000 to $11,000. It would then annually adjust the amount of these grants for inflation. My bill would also increase the auto grant assistance for traumatically injured veterans from $11,000 to $16,000, and then also index that grant for inflation. This benefit provides mobility and freedom to people such as SGT Eric Edmundson--whom my colleague from North Carolina talks about frequently--a young veteran from my State of North Carolina who lost the use of his legs after being injured during combat. As a result, Eric now uses a motorized wheelchair. The expense to get a van that is wheelchair accessible is enormous. This provision makes it financially possible for others, such as Eric, to afford what most of us take for granted: mobility. My bill would also provide annual increases in the funeral assistance and plot assistance benefits to families of deceased veterans to keep up with inflation. It would increase ``kickers'' for members of the Guard and Reserve from $350 to $425 per month, providing extra monthly education benefits that may be paid to members with certain critical skills. It also allows Guard and Reserve personnel activated for a cumulative 2 years after the war on terror began to receive maximum education benefits. The current requirement is either 3 cumulative years or 2 continuous years of service. This change will make it easier for our men and women who have gone on multiple deployments, including many of the Guard and Reserve from my home State of North Carolina, to earn the highest level of education benefits. With these changes to S. 1315, we have a well-balanced package of benefit enhancements for our Nation's veterans which could garner the support of the entire Senate. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about S. 1315 in its current form. The problem with S. 1315 is the provision that creates a special pension for World War II Filipino veterans. This is both wrong and it is costly. It is wrong because it takes money from American veterans and sends it to the Philippines to create a special pension for noncitizen, nonresident Filipino veterans with no service-connected disabilities. Allow me to explain this provision in S. 1315 and what it would actually do. It proposes to send $328 million over 10 years in benefits for Filipino veterans. Although I am supportive of the increased benefits for Filipino veterans residing in the United States and even increasing benefits for Filipinos with service-connected injuries residing elsewhere, I cannot support sending $221 million to the Philippines to create a special pension for noninjured Filipino veterans. To some, this may sound like a nice thing to do, and I fully respect their desire to recognize the valued service made by Filipino veterans in defense of the Philippine islands. But I point out that our Government has already done a great deal to provide for Filipinos who fought in World War II. For instance, after the war, the United States gave $620 million to the Philippines for repair of public property and war damage claims; provided partial-dollar VA disability compensation to Filipinos with service-related disabilities, and provided benefits to the survivors of Filipinos injured in the war. The United States also provided $22.5 million for the construction and equipping of a hospital in the Philippines for the care of Filipino veterans and later donated that hospital to the Philippine Government. On top of that, the United States continues to provide annual grants to support the operation of that hospital in the Philippines. For those Filipinos legally residing in the United States, the benefits are even more robust. They are eligible for full-dollar disability compensation, for cash burial benefits, access to our VA health delivery clinics and medical centers, and burial in our national cemeteries. With these initiatives and others, our Government has taken a significant step to recognize the service of Filipino veterans. More importantly, the money that S. 1315 would send overseas to create a new special pension for Filipinos is money that is needed in the United States to support our men and women who have served our country, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. Simply put, with our Nation now at war, this Filipino pension provision is the wrong priority at the wrong time. Since the committee's markup, we have tried to refocus this bill and the priorities that so many of our colleagues share, such as enhancing benefits for men and women fighting in the war on terror. Because those efforts have not worked, I introduced today an alternative omnibus bill to 1315. I kept most of the provisions found in 1315 because it is generally a good bill. It would provide enhancements to a wide range of benefits for our Nation's veterans. In short, my bill serves as a fair and just compromise. It improves benefits for Filipinos, but it also places the appropriate priority on our returning OIF and OEF veterans. I believe it is a reasonable alternative to S. 1315, and I believe it is one we can all embrace and pass quickly. I ask my colleagues for their support. I am ready to debate the contents of this bill against S. 1315. I am sure, if the leadership sees fit, they will set the structure up to do that. But it is important that every Member of the Senate and every American understand we have done a tremendous job of supporting people who have fought with us in battle, and the Filipinos are no different. The reality is, at this time, we should focus on the needs of those who are U.S. citizens, the needs of those who were injured in battle, but not to create a special pension fund for individuals who had an affiliation, and I might say that exceeds the annual income of most Filipino residents. I urge my colleagues to learn about this issue and to get ready to engage in debate. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. As my good friend noted, the Intelligence Committee bill gives the FISA Court an important role in foreign targeting. The bill requires that any acquisition be conducted pursuant to the specific targeting and minimization processes and procedures. What is the court's role with respect to these procedures?

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Senator Burr pertaining to the introduction of S. 2573 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')