Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, today I take that comment with respect and honor because I am here, like many of my colleagues, to join in speaking about the loss of Senator Craig Thomas, a friend from the neighboring State of Wyoming. Over the course of years in working with Craig on the floor of the House and here in the Senate, I must tell you that notice of his death late yesterday evening was a real loss to me and my wife Suzanne. And I say to his wife Susan and their four children that we stand in quiet prayer for strength for you through this difficult time in the loss of a truly marvelous American. The Senator from Colorado just mentioned the word ``cowboy,'' and I oftentimes, when at a gathering with Craig, if the opportunity arose where we were both speakers and I was to introduce him--and that happened on several occasions--I would say: And now, ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce the cowboy from Wyoming. And he would stand with a big smile on his face because he viewed that as a statement of respect. I think we westerners, who work closely together on issues that are uniquely western, appreciate and understand that expression. Craig came to the House in 1989, just as I was leaving the House, so I got to know him then. And, of course, when he came to the Senate and came to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where we both grew in seniority, we began to work very closely together on so many issues that were important to the West but also issues that were important to the Nation. CQ, Congressional Quarterly, in its Political Profiles of American Politicians, said this about Craig, and I think it is so typical of the man. They said: While Thomas pursues his State's interests, he does it in a quiet, methodical way that has made him remarkably few enemies after nearly two decades in Congress. Known for his courtesy and diplomacy, even on bitterly contested issues, he is no pushover. That is the Craig Thomas whom we all got to know. He could be tough in his position. He knew exactly where he was on almost all issues, and he very seldom gave ground. But he would give ground when he knew it would bring the issue to resolution. Now, I say that is the art of a talented policymaker, and Craig Thomas, representing his State of Wyoming and the Nation, was truly that. He filled big shoes. When he came to the House, he filled the shoes of the departing Dick Cheney, and, of course, when he came over here, he filled the shoes of Malcolm Wallop, who was well known here as a very clear conservative and often very partisan Member of the Senate. But in filling those shoes--and more importantly, he brought his own boots--he made his own mark for his State and for the Nation. So whether it was park issues, whether it was natural resource issues, whether it was differences between that boundary line that sometimes is fairly indistinguishable out West between Idaho and Wyoming, Craig Thomas served the citizens of his State extremely well. Oftentimes known as an open, multiple-use advocate, as both he and I are on the utilization of our public lands and their management, when it came to Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Teton National Park, they were something special in Craig's mind. Oftentimes I would say: Craig, you are siding with the environmentalists on that issue. He would laugh or smile and say: Larry, nothing is too good in protecting Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Teton. They are the crown jewels in the Nation and they are a major part of my State. While we were very seldom in disagreement, there were times when there was a bump-up now and then, as is typical amongst all of us who serve in the Senate, even though on most issues we found great compatibility. I am one amongst all who will miss Craig Thomas. He was a friend of longstanding, a colleague. His wife Susan and my wife Suzanne had become good friends over the years, as so many of us do while working in the Senate. His life is taken from us and from the citizens of his State and from his family at a time when Craig Thomas was serving his State and his Nation well. Again, to his wife and children, we are going to miss Craig a great deal in the Senate. I, personally, as a friend, will miss Craig Thomas. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1231

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. change of vote

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to make, what I believe to be, vital and necessary changes to one of the most successful Federal-State partnership programs in the Nation today. I am speaking of the State Veterans Home Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs. For those of my colleagues who do not know very much about this great program, the Federal-State partnership known as the State Home Program dates back nearly 120 years. It was August 7, 1888, when a $100 check from the Federal government helped the State of Connecticut offset the financial burden of caring for aging Civil War veterans. Since that time, of course, the program has greatly matured. And it has grown into the largest institutional provider of long-term care services for our Nation's aging veterans. Today, the grant part of the program receives an annual appropriation of about $100 million. VA uses the money to pay for two-thirds of the costs of constructing State home beds pursuant to applications submitted by the States. After a home is built, the State operates the nursing facility and maintains the property for the benefit of veterans. VA, in turn, pays a daily stipend to the State of approximately $60 for each veteran in the home. The States then support the rest of the cost of care either by collecting some money from the veterans or through direct appropriation from the State legislature. I realize that my description of this program may have some of my colleagues scratching their heads trying to find out why I believe the program needs to change and modernize. Let me explain. As many of you know, during the 107th Congress, I served as chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. I did a lot of work on long- term care issues and held many hearings on the topic. What I learned is that there is a big shift across the country from the traditional institutional care to a less restrictive, family oriented, home and community based approach to care. When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I found that VA's system is strongly biased toward institutional care. We spend most of our long-term care budget on institutional beds. I realize that nursing homes are sometimes the best place for a sick, aging person to be properly cared for. Therefore, clearly VA needs to provide that service. But, let's face it. All of us would prefer that we never end up in a nursing home. We would do everything within our power to remain in the comfort and safety of our homes and with our families. The interesting thing about our human desire to remain in our own homes and out of nursing homes is that our human desire is also a positive financial desire. Noninstitutional long-term care services are much more cost-effective than care provided in an institutional setting. Providing people with long-term care options and the opportunity to remain in their homes for as long as possible is exactly what my legislation is about. There is an old saying that goes ``when all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like nails.'' Essentially what that means is, we use the tools we have to solve whatever problem arises, even if a different tool might be more appropriate. For nearly 120 years, with little exception, the only tool available through the State Veterans Home Program has been a bed: an institutional nursing home bed. So, whenever a veteran in a local community has independent living challenges, the State home program has a tool to help them: it has a bed. My Legislation would give the State homes additional tools to offer our veterans. My bill would establish a noninstitutional care State home grant program. The premise of the new program would be the same as the current institutional program. States would submit an application to construct a building or renovate part of an existing state home to offer noninstitutional services to veterans. The State would have to provide one-third of the cost for construction and then take ownership and operational responsibility for the building and the care after the facility opens. Similar to the payment structure today, VA would provide a daily payment for each veteran who receives services from the facility. My legislation would also make some changes in the state home grant program that would help it transition into a more modern care delivery system. As my colleagues may be aware, under the current program, States submit applications to VA to receive construction assistance. If the State can demonstrate that the project meets VA's requirements for quality; that its use will be primarily for veterans; and that the State has its one-third matching funds, then VA approves the project and places it on list according to a statutory priority. My bill would create a 2-year window, starting with the date of enactment, for States to submit their new bed applications. Similarly, it would create a 2-year window for any State to come up with matching funds for any approved application that currently lacks the required match. After the 2-year window, VA would be prohibited from accepting any new applications for new bed construction. I believe the reason we need this change is simple. For fiscal year 2007, there are $808 million in grant proposals on VA's approved list. Approximately $490 million in project proposals are in priority one status, meaning that the States have provided the required one-third matching funds. At the rate of $100 million per year provided by Congress to fund these grants, it will take nearly 9 more years for Congress to fund all of the current projects on the list. That, of course, is assuming that no new projects will be added to it. And construction of all of those projects would probably not be completed until about 15 years from now. All of that may sound like long-term planning for future care needs. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Nation as a whole is moving away from institutionalizing the elderly. Our aging years are supposed to be our golden years. We conjure up images of sitting on a porch, sipping tea with our spouse of 50 plus years watching the sun set. The reality, unfortunately, is that in many cases those years are spent separated from one another as one spouse is no longer able to fully care for the other. And the only option available for assistance is institutionalization. We can do better. And this bill will move us in that direction for our veterans. I ask all of us to consider why we have a policy at VA that encourages spending nearly $1 billion building 5,300 more new beds in a system that already has about 20,000 beds when we as a nation are trying to move in a direction that provides home and community based care programs that keep the elderly in their homes and out of long-term care institutions. I think VA and the States should change course for the betterment of our Nation's heroes. I believe that by phasing out the current institutional bias and focusing the energy and finances of the program on noninstitutional alternatives, VA and the States will serve more veterans and keep those veterans in their homes, where they want to be, for a much longer time. I realize that we will still probably fund 5 or 6 thousand more new beds in the State home program just because of the 2-year window. But I recognize that Senators and Representatives will strongly support the institutional grants so long as their State has an application pending. I do not blame the Members. I would do the same thing if Idaho had submitted an application. So, I want to give everyone's State a fair chance to participate in the program. But, I also believe that we need to transition beyond beds. And if we fail to set out the transition soon, I believe we will find ourselves 20 years from now undertaking a painful study on what to do with 15,000 empty nursing home beds in all of our States. Noninstitutional service is simply the direction of long-term care and health care today because families want to be together and home is where they want to be. VA's partnership with the States to provide long-term care to our Nation's veterans is an unmitigated success. We must continue to support the 20,000 beds we currently have. And we will. They provide the most compassionate, cost-effective institutional care in the Nation. But, we also must modernize the program. We must keep up with the trends in health care that are pointing us in the direction of home and community-based services and away from institutions. We must change to find a way to serve more veterans with the same amount of resources. But, most importantly, we must modernize because it is the humane and right thing to do in responding to the wishes of our constituents to stay home in their later years and grow old with the people they love. I urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to make, what I believe to be, vital and necessary changes to one of the most successful Federal-State partnership programs in the Nation today. I am speaking of the State Veterans Home Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs. For those of my colleagues who do not know very much about this great program, the Federal-State partnership known as the State Home Program dates back nearly 120 years. It was August 7, 1888, when a $100 check from the Federal government helped the State of Connecticut offset the financial burden of caring for aging Civil War veterans. Since that time, of course, the program has greatly matured. And it has grown into the largest institutional provider of long-term care services for our Nation's aging veterans. Today, the grant part of the program receives an annual appropriation of about $100 million. VA uses the money to pay for two-thirds of the costs of constructing State home beds pursuant to applications submitted by the States. After a home is built, the State operates the nursing facility and maintains the property for the benefit of veterans. VA, in turn, pays a daily stipend to the State of approximately $60 for each veteran in the home. The States then support the rest of the cost of care either by collecting some money from the veterans or through direct appropriation from the State legislature. I realize that my description of this program may have some of my colleagues scratching their heads trying to find out why I believe the program needs to change and modernize. Let me explain. As many of you know, during the 107th Congress, I served as chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. I did a lot of work on long- term care issues and held many hearings on the topic. What I learned is that there is a big shift across the country from the traditional institutional care to a less restrictive, family oriented, home and community based approach to care. When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I found that VA's system is strongly biased toward institutional care. We spend most of our long-term care budget on institutional beds. I realize that nursing homes are sometimes the best place for a sick, aging person to be properly cared for. Therefore, clearly VA needs to provide that service. But, let's face it. All of us would prefer that we never end up in a nursing home. We would do everything within our power to remain in the comfort and safety of our homes and with our families. The interesting thing about our human desire to remain in our own homes and out of nursing homes is that our human desire is also a positive financial desire. Noninstitutional long-term care services are much more cost-effective than care provided in an institutional setting. Providing people with long-term care options and the opportunity to remain in their homes for as long as possible is exactly what my legislation is about. There is an old saying that goes ``when all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like nails.'' Essentially what that means is, we use the tools we have to solve whatever problem arises, even if a different tool might be more appropriate. For nearly 120 years, with little exception, the only tool available through the State Veterans Home Program has been a bed: an institutional nursing home bed. So, whenever a veteran in a local community has independent living challenges, the State home program has a tool to help them: it has a bed. My Legislation would give the State homes additional tools to offer our veterans. My bill would establish a noninstitutional care State home grant program. The premise of the new program would be the same as the current institutional program. States would submit an application to construct a building or renovate part of an existing state home to offer noninstitutional services to veterans. The State would have to provide one-third of the cost for construction and then take ownership and operational responsibility for the building and the care after the facility opens. Similar to the payment structure today, VA would provide a daily payment for each veteran who receives services from the facility. My legislation would also make some changes in the state home grant program that would help it transition into a more modern care delivery system. As my colleagues may be aware, under the current program, States submit applications to VA to receive construction assistance. If the State can demonstrate that the project meets VA's requirements for quality; that its use will be primarily for veterans; and that the State has its one-third matching funds, then VA approves the project and places it on list according to a statutory priority. My bill would create a 2-year window, starting with the date of enactment, for States to submit their new bed applications. Similarly, it would create a 2-year window for any State to come up with matching funds for any approved application that currently lacks the required match. After the 2-year window, VA would be prohibited from accepting any new applications for new bed construction. I believe the reason we need this change is simple. For fiscal year 2007, there are $808 million in grant proposals on VA's approved list. Approximately $490 million in project proposals are in priority one status, meaning that the States have provided the required one-third matching funds. At the rate of $100 million per year provided by Congress to fund these grants, it will take nearly 9 more years for Congress to fund all of the current projects on the list. That, of course, is assuming that no new projects will be added to it. And construction of all of those projects would probably not be completed until about 15 years from now. All of that may sound like long-term planning for future care needs. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Nation as a whole is moving away from institutionalizing the elderly. Our aging years are supposed to be our golden years. We conjure up images of sitting on a porch, sipping tea with our spouse of 50 plus years watching the sun set. The reality, unfortunately, is that in many cases those years are spent separated from one another as one spouse is no longer able to fully care for the other. And the only option available for assistance is institutionalization. We can do better. And this bill will move us in that direction for our veterans. I ask all of us to consider why we have a policy at VA that encourages spending nearly $1 billion building 5,300 more new beds in a system that already has about 20,000 beds when we as a nation are trying to move in a direction that provides home and community based care programs that keep the elderly in their homes and out of long-term care institutions. I think VA and the States should change course for the betterment of our Nation's heroes. I believe that by phasing out the current institutional bias and focusing the energy and finances of the program on noninstitutional alternatives, VA and the States will serve more veterans and keep those veterans in their homes, where they want to be, for a much longer time. I realize that we will still probably fund 5 or 6 thousand more new beds in the State home program just because of the 2-year window. But I recognize that Senators and Representatives will strongly support the institutional grants so long as their State has an application pending. I do not blame the Members. I would do the same thing if Idaho had submitted an application. So, I want to give everyone's State a fair chance to participate in the program. But, I also believe that we need to transition beyond beds. And if we fail to set out the transition soon, I believe we will find ourselves 20 years from now undertaking a painful study on what to do with 15,000 empty nursing home beds in all of our States. Noninstitutional service is simply the direction of long-term care and health care today because families want to be together and home is where they want to be. VA's partnership with the States to provide long-term care to our Nation's veterans is an unmitigated success. We must continue to support the 20,000 beds we currently have. And we will. They provide the most compassionate, cost-effective institutional care in the Nation. But, we also must modernize the program. We must keep up with the trends in health care that are pointing us in the direction of home and community-based services and away from institutions. We must change to find a way to serve more veterans with the same amount of resources. But, most importantly, we must modernize because it is the humane and right thing to do in responding to the wishes of our constituents to stay home in their later years and grow old with the people they love. I urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as you know, the month of May is Foster Care Month, when we take special note of the young people served by our Nation's foster care system, and the dedicated volunteers and professionals who work with and for them. Today, I rise to pay tribute to a fellow Idahoan who is making a tremendously positive difference in the lives of foster children in our State. Dee Sarton is a reporter at KTVB News Channel 7. Since November 1998, she has used her talent and experience to produce segments promoting the adoption of children out of the foster care system. On Wednesday nights, just before signing off the early evening news, she introduces sibling groups or older youth who are waiting for adoptive homes, and her compelling, sensitive interviews with these young people have touched the hearts of families across the Nation. She has introduced more than 500 children and has partnered with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare in helping them find stability and love through adoption. Dee brings energy, intuition, and a sincere concern for the future of each child to each production day. Although these young people have troubled histories and range from the gregarious to the shy, she manages to form an immediate bond with them. Her empathy and patience come from an abiding desire to help them achieve the normalcy they have described over and over in similar ways: ``I just want to be treated like a regular kid.'' For her outstanding work on behalf of Idaho's youth, I nominated Dee Sarton to receive the 2006 ``Angel in Adoption'' award presented by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, and I am very proud to share her story with my colleagues today.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to help ensure the long-term ability of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to promptly dispense justice in all veterans cases. In 1988, Congress created this court to hear appeals from decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs, most commonly on veterans' claims for disability compensation based on injuries or diseases they suffered during service. As was discussed at a hearing I called last year while serving as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the CAVC is facing some serious challenges, which may impede its ability to consistently provide timely decisions to our Nation's veterans. In fact, between 2004 and 2006 the court experienced something akin to a ``perfect storm.'' The last four of the original judges, who were appointed when the court was created, all retired, taking 60 years of experience with them; the court's incoming caseload experienced a dramatic 67-percent increase; and the court was left with a single judge who had at least 2 years of experience deciding these often complex cases. As a consequence, the court received 30 percent more cases than it decided during that time and the number of pending cases doubled in less than 2 years. With over 6,000 cases still pending, almost 4,000 more than a decade ago, and with the court continuing to receive record levels of incoming cases, veterans seeking justice from the court may feel the effects of this ``perfect storm'' for many years to come, as the court struggles to eliminate the existing backlog and to keep up with new appeals. For the men and women who have served, sacrificed, and suffered for our Nation, I believe we must take steps to ensure that they will receive timely decisions on their appeals, not just today but for many years to come. That is why I am introducing this bill to help the court deal with its existing caseload and to help ensure that, in the long term, the court will not face such a devastating combination of events. As one means of helping with the current caseload, the bill would modify the rules that govern the recall of retired judges. Under current law, a retiring judge may opt to be recall eligible, which means the judge may be involuntarily called back to work for up to 90 days per year when needed and may voluntarily serve up to 180 days per year. For this court, like other Federal courts, the option of receiving help from retired judges can be an extremely important resource. In fact, last year, after the court began recalling retired judges to help with its caseload, the court's productivity rose over 19 percent in 3 months. In view of the obvious value of having experienced retired judges continue to decide veterans' cases and the fact that they currently receive the same salary as active judges regardless of how much, if any, service they provide in a year, it would be a win-win situation for veterans, the court, and taxpayers if a retired judge opted to return to the bench more frequently or for longer periods than current law permits. To allow for that possibility, the bill would eliminate the 180-day cap and permit a retired judge to voluntarily serve in recall status as many days during a year as he or she wishes. Also, because the court may need an unprecedented level of service from retired judges in the next several years to help deal with its caseload, the bill would provide an incentive for the current complement of recall-eligible judges to provide as much service as practical during that time. Specifically, the bill would provide that, once a recall-eligible judge has served an aggregate of 5 years of recall service, the judge will no longer be subject to involuntarily recall and will continue to receive the same salary, that of an active judge. To put that into perspective, if a retired judge were to be recalled for 90 days each year, as current law permits, it would take 20 years to provide the equivalent of 5 years of recall service. In addition to allowing judges to accelerate their service into fewer years, at a time when it may be most beneficial to veterans, this change may also encourage retired judges to serve in recall status for longer periods of time. This should help minimize concerns expressed by the Chief Judge in recent years about how much retired judges would be able to accomplish in the limited 90 day recall period. With these changes, the court should have the judicial resources it needs to handle its caseload in the near term. In addition, this bill would take steps to ensure that the court, in the long run, is not faced with a difficult transition like the one it experienced in recent years. By way of background, the original judges, except for one who died, all retired between 2000 and 2005, with four of those retirements occurring within a single 12-month period. Given the delays inherent in the appointment and confirmation process, this left the CAVC without a full complement of active judges for much of that 5-year period. As the Chief Judge testified in 2006, functioning with less than seven judges ``led to a backlog'' of cases at the court. Perhaps more significantly, this cluster of retirements meant that, as of August 2005, the court had only one judge, the new Chief Judge, who had at least 2 years of experience on the bench. In the words of that Chief Judge, ``no other Federal court would be faced with the transition that we were faced with as of August 2005. Where else in the Federal judiciary system could I, the junior judge . . . suddenly become the senior judge, and have all of the experience of the court departing?'' The Chief Judge also opined that ``[t]his turnover on the Court has had great significance, particularly in the short term, on the Court's case management.'' The effects of this turnover may have been magnified by the fact that this court deals with a very specialized area of law, which by all accounts has become increasingly complex in recent years. In fact, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States recently described veterans' law as ``a complex thicket of court decisions and statutory requirements.'' To further complicate the situation, the court experienced a dramatic rise in the number of incoming cases in recent years. In fact, in 2005 the court received 37 percent more cases than it had received in any prior year and, then, in 2006 the court received an even higher level of incoming cases. As I indicated earlier, the combined effect of these factors led the court to be ``in the red'' for several years, taking in almost 3,000 more cases than it decided. Although some factors that have contributed to the court's challenges cannot be controlled, it seems clear that multiple retirements of experienced judges within a relatively short period of time can have a profound impact on the court's ability to decide veterans' cases. It is worth noting that Congress previously attempted to stagger the retirement dates of the judges by temporarily expanding the size of the court and by shortening the length of two judges' terms. Despite those efforts, it is possible that 6 of the 7 judges now on the bench will retire within a 4-year window, an even shorter period than the disruptive turnover between 2000 and 2005. That is why I believe we need to try a completely new approach to help ensure that experienced judges will stay on the bench for as long as practicable and will not retire in clusters as their terms expire. To that end, this bill would eliminate the term limits for any new judges appointed to the court and would provide those judges with full pay-of-the-office only when serving as an active judge or when providing service as a recalled retired judge. The combined effect of those provisions should encourage judges to stay on the bench longer before they retire and to regularly volunteer for recall service after they retire. Yes, this represents a significant departure from the traditional model for article I courts. But as experience has shown, the current model is not adequate to consistently provide veterans with timely decisions on their claims and we simply cannot allow further disruptions in service to our Nation's heroes each time the court turns over. Once judges gain years of valuable experience in this complex, specialized area of law, we should not force them, and their experience, into retirement. Rather, we should take steps, as this bill would do, to permit veterans and the court to receive the maximum possible benefit from their years on the bench. To avoid ``changing the rules'' on those judges who have already been appointed and confirmed, these changes would be prospective, applying only to judges appointed to the court on or after the date of enactment of this bill. In the meantime, I hope the changes to the current recall provisions that I mentioned earlier will help avoid a difficult transition when the current sitting judges retire. In addition to these changes to the term limits and recall rules, the bill would require the Chief Judge, in conjunction with the court's stakeholders, to set guidelines for when recall would be appropriate, taking into account such factors as the number of active judges, temporary or prolonged increases or decreases in caseload, and the complexity of the caseload. It would also require the court to submit annual performance reports to Congress including information on the court's workload during the prior year, as well as an analysis of whether the standards for recalling judges were met and what service, if any, was performed by retired judges. Such guidelines should aid the court, retired judges, and Congress in planning for periods when recall will likely be used and when it will not. More importantly, the number of recall-eligible judges and their level of activity are important factors that must be considered in determining whether the court has sufficient judicial resources. If current caseload trends continue and the court, even fully utilizing the services of recalled judges, is unable to provide veterans with the level of service they deserve, the addition of judgeships may need to be considered. These guidelines and reports will allow Congress to closely monitor that situation to ensure that the court has the necessary capacity. Finally, the bill would recognize the critical and increasingly demanding role of the Chief Judge by allowing the salary of the Chief Judge to be increased by $7,000 per year, and the bill would direct the General Services Administration to provide Congress with a report as to the feasibility and desirability of converting the court's current location into a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center. It is my sincere hope that the fundamental changes in this bill will help ensure that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is able to consistently provide veterans with timely decisions, now and for many years to come. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to ensure that veterans and their families have access to educational assistance benefits unimpeded by layers of bureaucracy and inflexible legal requirements. Each year, the Department of Veterans Affairs provides educational assistance benefits to veterans, servicemembers, reservists, and their families to pursue a wide array of educational opportunities, including traditional college degrees, vocational training, apprenticeships, and on-the-job training programs. VA contracts with entities called ``State approving agencies,'' SAAs, to assess whether schools and training programs are of sufficient quality for individuals to receive VA education benefits while pursuing their programs. That SAA approval process was originally instituted after World War II to help stem abuses of veterans' education benefits, such as scam vocational and business schools profiting from those education benefits and then not providing veterans with an education of any value. Today, unlike 60 years ago, schools and educational programs of all types may be scrutinized by a number of different entities, including the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, various national and regional accrediting bodies, and state licensing agencies. In fact, in 1995 the Government Accountability Office found that a substantial portion of the approval activities performed by SAAs overlapped with work done by others. Several years later, the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance concluded that veterans should be ``the primary judge of the appropriateness of accredited courses to their plans for the future'' and that ``[a]pproval of institutions accredited by accrediting bodies recognized by the Department of Education should suffice for veterans' training approval.'' In the years since those findings, Congress has altered the responsibilities of SAAs by requiring them to perform additional functions, such as promoting the development of apprenticeships and on- the-job training programs, conducting outreach services, and approving licensing tests. However, the traditional approval functions performed by SAAs, which are specifically required by statute, have not been significantly modified. Last year, in order to assess whether veterans face unnecessary or inefficient barriers in accessing VA education benefits under the current system, I asked GAO to evaluate the extent to which SAA approval activities currently overlap with functions performed by the Departments of Labor and Education and what value is added by the services performed by SAAs. Let me give you a few examples of GAO's recent findings: Many education and training programs approved by SAAs have also been approved by the Departments of Education or Labor and VA and SAAs have taken few steps to coordinate approval activities with those Departments. To streamline approval processes, VA should collaborate with other agencies but, according to VA, that may be difficult because of the specific approval requirements in law. VA does not require SAAs to track the amount of resources they spend on specific duties and functions, including those that may be performed by other agencies, and thus does not have all relevant information to make resource allocation decisions or to determine whether it is spending federal funds efficiently and effectively. It is difficult to assess the effectiveness and progress of SAAs because VA does not have outcome-oriented performance measures in place to fully evaluate their performance. Although I have no doubts about the dedication and sincerity of SAA personnel in the field, I believe GAO's findings demonstrate that we do not have a systematic or objective way to determine whether the current mix of services provided by SAAs, which are mandated by statute, are either necessary or beneficial to the veterans and their families who participate in VA's education programs. That is why I believe we should overhaul the entire statutory scheme regarding SAAs, as this bill would do, to help eliminate redundant administrative procedures, increase VA's flexibility in determining the nature and extent of services that should be performed by SAAs, and improve accountability for any activities they undertake. Specifically, this bill would strike statutory provisions that mandate what activities SAAs must perform, how those functions must be carried out, and how VA must pay for them. Instead, VA would have authority to contract with SAAs for services that it deems valuable and to determine how those services should be performed, evaluated, and compensated. The bill would also require VA to coordinate approval activities performed by State approving agencies, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and other entities to reduce overlapping and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. To ensure that VA, Congress, and other stakeholders will be able to objectively assess the effectiveness of any functions performed by SAAs, VA would be required to establish outcome-oriented performance measures and SAAs would be required to track and report information on the resources expended on all activities they perform. Finally, the bill includes a provision, similar to legislation that the Senate passed last year, that would provide a $19 million spending authorization for SAAs effective at the start of the upcoming fiscal year and would allow, for the first time, SAA funding to be drawn from both mandatory spending accounts and discretionary accounts. By way of background, since 1988 VA payment for the services of SAAs has been made only out of funds available for ``readjustment benefits'', a VA account funded through mandatory appropriations, and has been subject to annual funding caps. For the current fiscal year, SAA funding from this entitlement account is capped at $19 million, but under current law there will be a $6 million reduction in authorized spending, to $13 million, for every fiscal year thereafter. Although the provisions of this bill would maintain a $19 million funding level in future years, it is important to note that that level is a ceiling, not a floor. As with any private- sector business or good-government business model, budgeting and funding decisions should be linked to performance and VA should contract only for those services that are necessary and valuable. In sum, this bill would provide VA with the flexibility to streamline approval processes, eliminate redundant bureaucratic procedures, focus resources on services that will meet the current needs of education program participants, and ensure that veterans and their families will not confront layers of bureaucracy and inflexible legal requirements in accessing their educational assistance benefits. I ask my colleagues to support this measure. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to enhance educational assistance benefits provided to active duty servicemembers, veterans, members of the Guard and Reserve, and their survivors and dependents by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, and the Department of Defense. In recent years, many veterans' organizations, members of Congress, and others have highlighted the need to modernize these education programs to support emerging and alternative education opportunities and to recognize that the role of Guard and Reserve members has been transformed since September 11, 2001. This bill would take significant steps in that direction by providing greater flexibility in the use of these education benefits, revising eligibility criteria to reflect current mobilization strategies for Guard and Reserve units, and enhancing the education program for our ``citizen soldiers'' who have been called up to serve in the war on terror. First, this bill would provide veterans, Guard and Reserve members, and their spouses and dependents with additional flexibility in using existing education benefits. Traditionally, educational assistance benefits have been paid in equal monthly allotments throughout a semester or term. For veterans, the maximum basic rate is now $1,075 per month, which means a veteran may receive at least $9,675 over the course of an average school year and almost $39,000 during a 4-year college program. This system works well for veterans attending a traditional four-year college. But, as the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance reported in 1999, the existing payment structure ``constrains veterans and servicemembers desiring to enroll in short- term career-focused technical courses,'' a problem that is ``especially acute if the cost of the course dramatically exceeds the benefits payable for the few months' duration of the course.'' That is why in 2001 I cosponsored legislation to establish an ``accelerated'' payment option for veterans' education benefits. With that program now in place, a veteran may receive an up-front, lump-sum payment of up to 60 percent of the cost of certain high-tech, high-cost programs. Since that option was made available, many veterans have used that additional flexibility to train for jobs in high technology sectors of the economy, such as the computer and telecommunications industry, the aerospace industry, and the electronics industry. Then last year, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I supported legislation that would have expanded this option to allow accelerated payments for short-term, high-cost education programs leading to jobs in any high growth sectors of the economy. Although VA also supported that legislation, VA testified that ``implementation would be challenging'' and that ``[i]t would be cleaner and more direct if the bill simply stated that all high-cost short-term courses were eligible for accelerated payments.'' Having taken those concerns into account, this bill would allow veterans to receive accelerated payments for any short-term, high-cost education programs, and it would authorize VA to spend up to $3 million for those payments in each fiscal year from 2009 to 2012. Not only would this provide veterans with the flexibility to pursue nontraditional or technical educational opportunities, but it may help veterans quickly obtain job skills that currently are in high demand. For example, the trucking industry is now experiencing a critical shortage of trained drivers, but the GI Bill, as currently structured, may pay only a fraction of the cost for a veteran to take the 6 to 8 week training course, about $2,000 of a total $6,000 bill. With the availability of accelerated payments for those and other short-term, high-cost training programs, veterans may be able to obtain the skills needed to thrive in sectors of the economy that, today, are growing rapidly and can provide them with lucrative, rewarding career opportunities. In addition, the bill would, for the first time, provide Guard and Reserve members with the option of receiving accelerated payment of their education benefits. They, too, would be eligible to receive up- front, lump-sum payments of up to 60 percent of the cost of any short- term, high-cost education program. For fiscal years 2009 to 2012, the bill would authorize $2 million per year for the Montgomery GI bill, Selected Reserve program and $1 million per year for the smaller Reserve Educational Assistance Program to make these payments. To ensure that the families of veterans also have flexibility in the use of their education benefits, the bill would extend the same accelerated payment option to participants in the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance program. It would authorize VA to spend up to $1 million per year for those payments in fiscal years 2009 to 2012. The second principal goal of the bill is to update and enhance the education program for members of the Guard and Reserve who are called to active duty. In 2004, recognizing the increased sacrifices being made by our ``citizen soldiers'' who are fighting in the War on Terror, Congress created the Reserve Educational Assistance Program for Guard and Reserve members who are activated for at least 90 days after September 11, 2001. This program was a significant step in the right direction, providing a maximum benefit of $860 per month for 36 months, a total possible benefit of over $30,000. However, the maximum monthly benefit requires a deployment of 2 continuous years or more of active duty, and the Secretary of Defense has recently announced that ``from this point forward, members of the Reserves will be involuntarily mobilized for a maximum of one year at any one time, in contrast to the current practice of sixteen to twenty- four months.'' To bring those eligibility criteria in line with current practice, this bill would allow members of the Guard or Reserve to receive the maximum benefits if they are deployed for an aggregate period of 3 or more years. Finally, the bill would provide these ``citizen soldiers'' with access to a valuable option now available only under the Montgomery GI bill program for active duty servicemembers. Specifically, it would allow members of the Guard or Reserve to contribute up to $600 in order to receive an additional $150 per month in education benefits, which amounts to an additional $5,400 in benefits over the course of 36 months. Under this bill, Guard and Reserve members would, for the first time, have access to this valuable opportunity. With these modifications, we can take significant strides towards ensuring that current education programs are up-to-date and flexible and that they provide members of the Guard and Reserve with benefits commensurate with the level of service they are now performing on behalf of the entire Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to help ensure the long-term ability of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to promptly dispense justice in all veterans cases. In 1988, Congress created this court to hear appeals from decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs, most commonly on veterans' claims for disability compensation based on injuries or diseases they suffered during service. As was discussed at a hearing I called last year while serving as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the CAVC is facing some serious challenges, which may impede its ability to consistently provide timely decisions to our Nation's veterans. In fact, between 2004 and 2006 the court experienced something akin to a ``perfect storm.'' The last four of the original judges, who were appointed when the court was created, all retired, taking 60 years of experience with them; the court's incoming caseload experienced a dramatic 67-percent increase; and the court was left with a single judge who had at least 2 years of experience deciding these often complex cases. As a consequence, the court received 30 percent more cases than it decided during that time and the number of pending cases doubled in less than 2 years. With over 6,000 cases still pending, almost 4,000 more than a decade ago, and with the court continuing to receive record levels of incoming cases, veterans seeking justice from the court may feel the effects of this ``perfect storm'' for many years to come, as the court struggles to eliminate the existing backlog and to keep up with new appeals. For the men and women who have served, sacrificed, and suffered for our Nation, I believe we must take steps to ensure that they will receive timely decisions on their appeals, not just today but for many years to come. That is why I am introducing this bill to help the court deal with its existing caseload and to help ensure that, in the long term, the court will not face such a devastating combination of events. As one means of helping with the current caseload, the bill would modify the rules that govern the recall of retired judges. Under current law, a retiring judge may opt to be recall eligible, which means the judge may be involuntarily called back to work for up to 90 days per year when needed and may voluntarily serve up to 180 days per year. For this court, like other Federal courts, the option of receiving help from retired judges can be an extremely important resource. In fact, last year, after the court began recalling retired judges to help with its caseload, the court's productivity rose over 19 percent in 3 months. In view of the obvious value of having experienced retired judges continue to decide veterans' cases and the fact that they currently receive the same salary as active judges regardless of how much, if any, service they provide in a year, it would be a win-win situation for veterans, the court, and taxpayers if a retired judge opted to return to the bench more frequently or for longer periods than current law permits. To allow for that possibility, the bill would eliminate the 180-day cap and permit a retired judge to voluntarily serve in recall status as many days during a year as he or she wishes. Also, because the court may need an unprecedented level of service from retired judges in the next several years to help deal with its caseload, the bill would provide an incentive for the current complement of recall-eligible judges to provide as much service as practical during that time. Specifically, the bill would provide that, once a recall-eligible judge has served an aggregate of 5 years of recall service, the judge will no longer be subject to involuntarily recall and will continue to receive the same salary, that of an active judge. To put that into perspective, if a retired judge were to be recalled for 90 days each year, as current law permits, it would take 20 years to provide the equivalent of 5 years of recall service. In addition to allowing judges to accelerate their service into fewer years, at a time when it may be most beneficial to veterans, this change may also encourage retired judges to serve in recall status for longer periods of time. This should help minimize concerns expressed by the Chief Judge in recent years about how much retired judges would be able to accomplish in the limited 90 day recall period. With these changes, the court should have the judicial resources it needs to handle its caseload in the near term. In addition, this bill would take steps to ensure that the court, in the long run, is not faced with a difficult transition like the one it experienced in recent years. By way of background, the original judges, except for one who died, all retired between 2000 and 2005, with four of those retirements occurring within a single 12-month period. Given the delays inherent in the appointment and confirmation process, this left the CAVC without a full complement of active judges for much of that 5-year period. As the Chief Judge testified in 2006, functioning with less than seven judges ``led to a backlog'' of cases at the court. Perhaps more significantly, this cluster of retirements meant that, as of August 2005, the court had only one judge, the new Chief Judge, who had at least 2 years of experience on the bench. In the words of that Chief Judge, ``no other Federal court would be faced with the transition that we were faced with as of August 2005. Where else in the Federal judiciary system could I, the junior judge . . . suddenly become the senior judge, and have all of the experience of the court departing?'' The Chief Judge also opined that ``[t]his turnover on the Court has had great significance, particularly in the short term, on the Court's case management.'' The effects of this turnover may have been magnified by the fact that this court deals with a very specialized area of law, which by all accounts has become increasingly complex in recent years. In fact, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States recently described veterans' law as ``a complex thicket of court decisions and statutory requirements.'' To further complicate the situation, the court experienced a dramatic rise in the number of incoming cases in recent years. In fact, in 2005 the court received 37 percent more cases than it had received in any prior year and, then, in 2006 the court received an even higher level of incoming cases. As I indicated earlier, the combined effect of these factors led the court to be ``in the red'' for several years, taking in almost 3,000 more cases than it decided. Although some factors that have contributed to the court's challenges cannot be controlled, it seems clear that multiple retirements of experienced judges within a relatively short period of time can have a profound impact on the court's ability to decide veterans' cases. It is worth noting that Congress previously attempted to stagger the retirement dates of the judges by temporarily expanding the size of the court and by shortening the length of two judges' terms. Despite those efforts, it is possible that 6 of the 7 judges now on the bench will retire within a 4-year window, an even shorter period than the disruptive turnover between 2000 and 2005. That is why I believe we need to try a completely new approach to help ensure that experienced judges will stay on the bench for as long as practicable and will not retire in clusters as their terms expire. To that end, this bill would eliminate the term limits for any new judges appointed to the court and would provide those judges with full pay-of-the-office only when serving as an active judge or when providing service as a recalled retired judge. The combined effect of those provisions should encourage judges to stay on the bench longer before they retire and to regularly volunteer for recall service after they retire. Yes, this represents a significant departure from the traditional model for article I courts. But as experience has shown, the current model is not adequate to consistently provide veterans with timely decisions on their claims and we simply cannot allow further disruptions in service to our Nation's heroes each time the court turns over. Once judges gain years of valuable experience in this complex, specialized area of law, we should not force them, and their experience, into retirement. Rather, we should take steps, as this bill would do, to permit veterans and the court to receive the maximum possible benefit from their years on the bench. To avoid ``changing the rules'' on those judges who have already been appointed and confirmed, these changes would be prospective, applying only to judges appointed to the court on or after the date of enactment of this bill. In the meantime, I hope the changes to the current recall provisions that I mentioned earlier will help avoid a difficult transition when the current sitting judges retire. In addition to these changes to the term limits and recall rules, the bill would require the Chief Judge, in conjunction with the court's stakeholders, to set guidelines for when recall would be appropriate, taking into account such factors as the number of active judges, temporary or prolonged increases or decreases in caseload, and the complexity of the caseload. It would also require the court to submit annual performance reports to Congress including information on the court's workload during the prior year, as well as an analysis of whether the standards for recalling judges were met and what service, if any, was performed by retired judges. Such guidelines should aid the court, retired judges, and Congress in planning for periods when recall will likely be used and when it will not. More importantly, the number of recall-eligible judges and their level of activity are important factors that must be considered in determining whether the court has sufficient judicial resources. If current caseload trends continue and the court, even fully utilizing the services of recalled judges, is unable to provide veterans with the level of service they deserve, the addition of judgeships may need to be considered. These guidelines and reports will allow Congress to closely monitor that situation to ensure that the court has the necessary capacity. Finally, the bill would recognize the critical and increasingly demanding role of the Chief Judge by allowing the salary of the Chief Judge to be increased by $7,000 per year, and the bill would direct the General Services Administration to provide Congress with a report as to the feasibility and desirability of converting the court's current location into a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center. It is my sincere hope that the fundamental changes in this bill will help ensure that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is able to consistently provide veterans with timely decisions, now and for many years to come. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to ensure that veterans and their families have access to educational assistance benefits unimpeded by layers of bureaucracy and inflexible legal requirements. Each year, the Department of Veterans Affairs provides educational assistance benefits to veterans, servicemembers, reservists, and their families to pursue a wide array of educational opportunities, including traditional college degrees, vocational training, apprenticeships, and on-the-job training programs. VA contracts with entities called ``State approving agencies,'' SAAs, to assess whether schools and training programs are of sufficient quality for individuals to receive VA education benefits while pursuing their programs. That SAA approval process was originally instituted after World War II to help stem abuses of veterans' education benefits, such as scam vocational and business schools profiting from those education benefits and then not providing veterans with an education of any value. Today, unlike 60 years ago, schools and educational programs of all types may be scrutinized by a number of different entities, including the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, various national and regional accrediting bodies, and state licensing agencies. In fact, in 1995 the Government Accountability Office found that a substantial portion of the approval activities performed by SAAs overlapped with work done by others. Several years later, the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance concluded that veterans should be ``the primary judge of the appropriateness of accredited courses to their plans for the future'' and that ``[a]pproval of institutions accredited by accrediting bodies recognized by the Department of Education should suffice for veterans' training approval.'' In the years since those findings, Congress has altered the responsibilities of SAAs by requiring them to perform additional functions, such as promoting the development of apprenticeships and on- the-job training programs, conducting outreach services, and approving licensing tests. However, the traditional approval functions performed by SAAs, which are specifically required by statute, have not been significantly modified. Last year, in order to assess whether veterans face unnecessary or inefficient barriers in accessing VA education benefits under the current system, I asked GAO to evaluate the extent to which SAA approval activities currently overlap with functions performed by the Departments of Labor and Education and what value is added by the services performed by SAAs. Let me give you a few examples of GAO's recent findings: Many education and training programs approved by SAAs have also been approved by the Departments of Education or Labor and VA and SAAs have taken few steps to coordinate approval activities with those Departments. To streamline approval processes, VA should collaborate with other agencies but, according to VA, that may be difficult because of the specific approval requirements in law. VA does not require SAAs to track the amount of resources they spend on specific duties and functions, including those that may be performed by other agencies, and thus does not have all relevant information to make resource allocation decisions or to determine whether it is spending federal funds efficiently and effectively. It is difficult to assess the effectiveness and progress of SAAs because VA does not have outcome-oriented performance measures in place to fully evaluate their performance. Although I have no doubts about the dedication and sincerity of SAA personnel in the field, I believe GAO's findings demonstrate that we do not have a systematic or objective way to determine whether the current mix of services provided by SAAs, which are mandated by statute, are either necessary or beneficial to the veterans and their families who participate in VA's education programs. That is why I believe we should overhaul the entire statutory scheme regarding SAAs, as this bill would do, to help eliminate redundant administrative procedures, increase VA's flexibility in determining the nature and extent of services that should be performed by SAAs, and improve accountability for any activities they undertake. Specifically, this bill would strike statutory provisions that mandate what activities SAAs must perform, how those functions must be carried out, and how VA must pay for them. Instead, VA would have authority to contract with SAAs for services that it deems valuable and to determine how those services should be performed, evaluated, and compensated. The bill would also require VA to coordinate approval activities performed by State approving agencies, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and other entities to reduce overlapping and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. To ensure that VA, Congress, and other stakeholders will be able to objectively assess the effectiveness of any functions performed by SAAs, VA would be required to establish outcome-oriented performance measures and SAAs would be required to track and report information on the resources expended on all activities they perform. Finally, the bill includes a provision, similar to legislation that the Senate passed last year, that would provide a $19 million spending authorization for SAAs effective at the start of the upcoming fiscal year and would allow, for the first time, SAA funding to be drawn from both mandatory spending accounts and discretionary accounts. By way of background, since 1988 VA payment for the services of SAAs has been made only out of funds available for ``readjustment benefits'', a VA account funded through mandatory appropriations, and has been subject to annual funding caps. For the current fiscal year, SAA funding from this entitlement account is capped at $19 million, but under current law there will be a $6 million reduction in authorized spending, to $13 million, for every fiscal year thereafter. Although the provisions of this bill would maintain a $19 million funding level in future years, it is important to note that that level is a ceiling, not a floor. As with any private- sector business or good-government business model, budgeting and funding decisions should be linked to performance and VA should contract only for those services that are necessary and valuable. In sum, this bill would provide VA with the flexibility to streamline approval processes, eliminate redundant bureaucratic procedures, focus resources on services that will meet the current needs of education program participants, and ensure that veterans and their families will not confront layers of bureaucracy and inflexible legal requirements in accessing their educational assistance benefits. I ask my colleagues to support this measure. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to enhance educational assistance benefits provided to active duty servicemembers, veterans, members of the Guard and Reserve, and their survivors and dependents by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, and the Department of Defense. In recent years, many veterans' organizations, members of Congress, and others have highlighted the need to modernize these education programs to support emerging and alternative education opportunities and to recognize that the role of Guard and Reserve members has been transformed since September 11, 2001. This bill would take significant steps in that direction by providing greater flexibility in the use of these education benefits, revising eligibility criteria to reflect current mobilization strategies for Guard and Reserve units, and enhancing the education program for our ``citizen soldiers'' who have been called up to serve in the war on terror. First, this bill would provide veterans, Guard and Reserve members, and their spouses and dependents with additional flexibility in using existing education benefits. Traditionally, educational assistance benefits have been paid in equal monthly allotments throughout a semester or term. For veterans, the maximum basic rate is now $1,075 per month, which means a veteran may receive at least $9,675 over the course of an average school year and almost $39,000 during a 4-year college program. This system works well for veterans attending a traditional four-year college. But, as the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance reported in 1999, the existing payment structure ``constrains veterans and servicemembers desiring to enroll in short- term career-focused technical courses,'' a problem that is ``especially acute if the cost of the course dramatically exceeds the benefits payable for the few months' duration of the course.'' That is why in 2001 I cosponsored legislation to establish an ``accelerated'' payment option for veterans' education benefits. With that program now in place, a veteran may receive an up-front, lump-sum payment of up to 60 percent of the cost of certain high-tech, high-cost programs. Since that option was made available, many veterans have used that additional flexibility to train for jobs in high technology sectors of the economy, such as the computer and telecommunications industry, the aerospace industry, and the electronics industry. Then last year, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I supported legislation that would have expanded this option to allow accelerated payments for short-term, high-cost education programs leading to jobs in any high growth sectors of the economy. Although VA also supported that legislation, VA testified that ``implementation would be challenging'' and that ``[i]t would be cleaner and more direct if the bill simply stated that all high-cost short-term courses were eligible for accelerated payments.'' Having taken those concerns into account, this bill would allow veterans to receive accelerated payments for any short-term, high-cost education programs, and it would authorize VA to spend up to $3 million for those payments in each fiscal year from 2009 to 2012. Not only would this provide veterans with the flexibility to pursue nontraditional or technical educational opportunities, but it may help veterans quickly obtain job skills that currently are in high demand. For example, the trucking industry is now experiencing a critical shortage of trained drivers, but the GI Bill, as currently structured, may pay only a fraction of the cost for a veteran to take the 6 to 8 week training course, about $2,000 of a total $6,000 bill. With the availability of accelerated payments for those and other short-term, high-cost training programs, veterans may be able to obtain the skills needed to thrive in sectors of the economy that, today, are growing rapidly and can provide them with lucrative, rewarding career opportunities. In addition, the bill would, for the first time, provide Guard and Reserve members with the option of receiving accelerated payment of their education benefits. They, too, would be eligible to receive up- front, lump-sum payments of up to 60 percent of the cost of any short- term, high-cost education program. For fiscal years 2009 to 2012, the bill would authorize $2 million per year for the Montgomery GI bill, Selected Reserve program and $1 million per year for the smaller Reserve Educational Assistance Program to make these payments. To ensure that the families of veterans also have flexibility in the use of their education benefits, the bill would extend the same accelerated payment option to participants in the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance program. It would authorize VA to spend up to $1 million per year for those payments in fiscal years 2009 to 2012. The second principal goal of the bill is to update and enhance the education program for members of the Guard and Reserve who are called to active duty. In 2004, recognizing the increased sacrifices being made by our ``citizen soldiers'' who are fighting in the War on Terror, Congress created the Reserve Educational Assistance Program for Guard and Reserve members who are activated for at least 90 days after September 11, 2001. This program was a significant step in the right direction, providing a maximum benefit of $860 per month for 36 months, a total possible benefit of over $30,000. However, the maximum monthly benefit requires a deployment of 2 continuous years or more of active duty, and the Secretary of Defense has recently announced that ``from this point forward, members of the Reserves will be involuntarily mobilized for a maximum of one year at any one time, in contrast to the current practice of sixteen to twenty- four months.'' To bring those eligibility criteria in line with current practice, this bill would allow members of the Guard or Reserve to receive the maximum benefits if they are deployed for an aggregate period of 3 or more years. Finally, the bill would provide these ``citizen soldiers'' with access to a valuable option now available only under the Montgomery GI bill program for active duty servicemembers. Specifically, it would allow members of the Guard or Reserve to contribute up to $600 in order to receive an additional $150 per month in education benefits, which amounts to an additional $5,400 in benefits over the course of 36 months. Under this bill, Guard and Reserve members would, for the first time, have access to this valuable opportunity. With these modifications, we can take significant strides towards ensuring that current education programs are up-to-date and flexible and that they provide members of the Guard and Reserve with benefits commensurate with the level of service they are now performing on behalf of the entire Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing that will continue a positive trend in the provision of benefits to severely injured servicemembers and their families by making assistance available when it is needed most. My bill would give active duty servicemembers who utilize VA's specially adapted housing grant assistance with the ability to also purchase Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance, or VMLI, through VA. Under current law, the receipt of specially adapted housing grants is the gateway to VMLI eligibility. And only those separated from service and legally classified as ``veterans'' are able to purchase coverage through VMLI. Servicemembers and veterans who are blind, have lost the use of both their legs, and who have other severely disabling conditions are eligible to receive up to $50,000 in grants from VA to assist with needed housing adaptations, such as the widening of doorways, the construction of wheelchair ramps, and the installment of handrails. Notwithstanding this grant assistance, servicemembers and veterans must still pay any underlying mortgage that exists on the modified home. To ensure that survivors are not saddled with mortgage debt they cannot afford following the death of a severely disabled veteran, VA's VMLI program is available. Under VMLI, up to $90,000 of coverage, or coverage in the amount of any outstanding mortgage debt, whichever is less, is available. Veterans pay premiums at standard mortality rates and VA contributes subsidy payments so that all program expenses are met. Until recently, grants under the specially adapted housing program could only be made to individuals who had separated from military service. In recognition of what can be an extremely lengthy recovery and separation process for those with profoundly disabling conditions, in 2004 we in Congress allowed housing grants to be made to active duty servicemembers. However, we did not extend the same access to VA's VMLI program for those still on active duty, an oversight that my legislation would remedy. VA estimates that roughly 30 servicemembers per year will receive specially adapted housing grants, thus giving rise to VMLI eligibility should my bill be enacted. Because it is optional, VA expects only 15 servicemembers per year to purchase VMLI policies. Therefore, subsidy costs associated with my legislation are minimal, less than $500,000 over 10 years. This Congress increasingly is recognizing that the benefits provided to our wounded servicemembers need to flow immediately, and that outmoded distinctions between ``veteran'' and ``active duty servicemember'' mean little when it comes to honoring our commitment to them. My legislation continues what I believe is an encouraging trend that looks at the career of a military man or woman as a continuum. It is a continuum that begins the day they enlist and it ends the day they die. Our Government's benefits should reflect that reality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing that will improve the availability of dignified burials for those who have served our country. The Veterans' Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007 would make three improvements to programs designed to ensure that veterans are perpetually honored for their service. Let me start by describing the first improvement which had its genesis, I am proud to say, in my home State of Idaho. We have in Idaho a State veterans' cemetery located in Boise. The cemetery was established with the help of VA's State Cemetery Grants Program, a program which pays for 100 percent of the costs of establishing, expanding, and improving state cemeteries. Over one thousand veterans have been interred in the Idaho State Cemetery since it opened in 2004. I want to focus on 91 of those veterans who were interred through a program pioneered in Idaho called ``Missing in America.'' Through the Missing in America program Idaho cemetery officials, working with veterans' organizations and others, have actively sought to locate the unclaimed cremated remains of veterans throughout the State. They contacted funeral homes, county coroner offices, and any other place where those remains may have been located. Remarkably, they discovered the remains of 91 veterans. After verifying that they had eligibility, all 91 veterans were given a dignified burial. I suspect what was found in Idaho would be found in other States. My legislation would incentivize other States to develop Missing in America programs like Idaho's by allowing revenue from VA's plot allowance benefit to go to states which seek out and inter unclaimed remains. Under current law, State cemeteries may be reimbursed for the cost of interring eligible veterans. For each eligible veteran interred, a $300 plot allowance may be paid by VA. Revenue from the plot allowance is used to operate and maintain the appearance of State cemeteries. However, plot allowance revenue is not payable to States when veterans are interred more than 2 years after the permanent burial or cremation of the veteran's body. Thus, since each of the 91 veterans interred in Idaho had been left sitting on shelves in an urn for a great deal longer than 2 years, no plot allowance is payable. This doesn't make sense. Just as our system of benefits does not abandon or give up on veterans who are homeless or chronically ill, so too should our burial benefits system be designed not to abandon or give up on veterans whose remains are unclaimed. To that end, my legislation would waive the 2- year limit so that States could receive plot allowance revenue for interment of the unclaimed remains of veterans. The extra plot allowance revenue could be used to help states meet costs associated with running this program and other cemetery operation costs. Most importantly, my legislation would reward States for giving veterans what is long overdue: a fitting burial. The second way my legislation helps to ensure dignified burials is by increasing VA's plot allowance benefit from $300 to $400. As I mentioned earlier, the plot allowance can be paid directly to a State cemetery for the interment of eligible veterans. But it can also be paid to the survivors of veterans who purchase burial space on their own in the private market. Under current law, veterans who die in a VA facility, who are in receipt of disability compensation, or who have low incomes and are in receipt of VA pension are eligible to receive the $300 plot allowance benefit. The plot allowance, created in 1973, is designed to ensure that veterans are not buried in a pauper's grave. When the benefit was created, it covered 13 percent of the average cost of an adult funeral. Today, it only covers approximately 5 percent of the cost. An independent assessment of VA burial benefits directed by Congress and published in 2000 recommended, as an option, increasing the plot allowance to $670, which at the time of the assessment represented 13 percent of the average cost of an adult funeral. Since that assessment was published, the major veterans' organizations have persistently recommended that Congress increase this benefit. In its most recent budget submission, the authors of the Independent Budget recommended that the plot allowance be increased to $745. In 2001, Congress took a first step, raising the benefit from $150 to $300. My legislation would take yet another, measured step. Finally, my legislation would authorize $5 million per year under VA's State Cemetery Grant Program for VA to assist States in meeting operational and maintenance expenses. As I mentioned, the State Cemetery Grant Program finances the cost of establishing, expanding, or improving State cemeteries. States must agree to provide suitable land for a cemetery and they must meet administrative, operational, and maintenance costs. My purpose in introducing this aspect of the legislation is twofold. First, VA is in the midst of the largest national cemetery expansion since the Civil War. Guiding its cemetery expansion effort was a prospective look at where and how many veterans will be living 20 years from now. Based on that prospective analysis, national cemeteries are being built in those areas of the country that have veterans' populations of 170,000 or more and that are not residing within, or expected to reside within, 75 miles of an open State or national cemetery. It is therefore highly likely that after this expansion has concluded, no additional national cemeteries will be built for quite some time. Thus, in order to serve veterans' populations in less densely populated areas in the future, VA and the States will need to rely more on the State Cemetery Grant Program. Allowing reimbursement for some maintenance or operational expenses will serve to make the program more attractive to States, which may otherwise decline to participate in the program due to budget constraints. In fact, the 2000 independent assessment I spoke about earlier made the same point, recommending Congressional consideration of amending the grant program to allow for reimbursement of the sort contemplated in my legislation. My second purpose behind this provision is a bit more parochial. There are eight States in the country without any national cemetery, including Idaho. These are States with small or scattered veterans' populations. VA's criteria for establishing national cemeteries makes it unlikely that veterans in these States will ever have access to a national cemetery within the borders of their home State. Yet their service was national in character, and the desire for recognition of that national service through interment in a national cemetery is real, if not practical. It is my opinion that the Federal obligation to veterans residing in States like my own is therefore heightened. And if the only way to heighten that obligation is by requiring reimbursement of a greater share of the expenses now borne by the States, so be it. To my mind, this would be an equitable outcome, and one that I hope VA factors into criteria it will develop should my legislation be enacted. Let me make one final and very important point. The cost of my legislation is in the $8 million per year range. Although I am convinced of the merits of the legislation, I am also committed to adhering to our budget rules which require that appropriate spending offsets be identified before new spending is advanced. I assure my colleagues that should my legislation be reported from the Veterans' Affairs Committee, it will be fully offset in accordance with our rules and my own principle of fiscal discipline. In summary, the Veterans' Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007 will help us along in our collective goal of providing veterans with lasting resting places to honor their lives and service. This is good legislation, and I urge the support of my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing that will improve the availability of dignified burials for those who have served our country. The Veterans' Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007 would make three improvements to programs designed to ensure that veterans are perpetually honored for their service. Let me start by describing the first improvement which had its genesis, I am proud to say, in my home State of Idaho. We have in Idaho a State veterans' cemetery located in Boise. The cemetery was established with the help of VA's State Cemetery Grants Program, a program which pays for 100 percent of the costs of establishing, expanding, and improving state cemeteries. Over one thousand veterans have been interred in the Idaho State Cemetery since it opened in 2004. I want to focus on 91 of those veterans who were interred through a program pioneered in Idaho called ``Missing in America.'' Through the Missing in America program Idaho cemetery officials, working with veterans' organizations and others, have actively sought to locate the unclaimed cremated remains of veterans throughout the State. They contacted funeral homes, county coroner offices, and any other place where those remains may have been located. Remarkably, they discovered the remains of 91 veterans. After verifying that they had eligibility, all 91 veterans were given a dignified burial. I suspect what was found in Idaho would be found in other States. My legislation would incentivize other States to develop Missing in America programs like Idaho's by allowing revenue from VA's plot allowance benefit to go to states which seek out and inter unclaimed remains. Under current law, State cemeteries may be reimbursed for the cost of interring eligible veterans. For each eligible veteran interred, a $300 plot allowance may be paid by VA. Revenue from the plot allowance is used to operate and maintain the appearance of State cemeteries. However, plot allowance revenue is not payable to States when veterans are interred more than 2 years after the permanent burial or cremation of the veteran's body. Thus, since each of the 91 veterans interred in Idaho had been left sitting on shelves in an urn for a great deal longer than 2 years, no plot allowance is payable. This doesn't make sense. Just as our system of benefits does not abandon or give up on veterans who are homeless or chronically ill, so too should our burial benefits system be designed not to abandon or give up on veterans whose remains are unclaimed. To that end, my legislation would waive the 2- year limit so that States could receive plot allowance revenue for interment of the unclaimed remains of veterans. The extra plot allowance revenue could be used to help states meet costs associated with running this program and other cemetery operation costs. Most importantly, my legislation would reward States for giving veterans what is long overdue: a fitting burial. The second way my legislation helps to ensure dignified burials is by increasing VA's plot allowance benefit from $300 to $400. As I mentioned earlier, the plot allowance can be paid directly to a State cemetery for the interment of eligible veterans. But it can also be paid to the survivors of veterans who purchase burial space on their own in the private market. Under current law, veterans who die in a VA facility, who are in receipt of disability compensation, or who have low incomes and are in receipt of VA pension are eligible to receive the $300 plot allowance benefit. The plot allowance, created in 1973, is designed to ensure that veterans are not buried in a pauper's grave. When the benefit was created, it covered 13 percent of the average cost of an adult funeral. Today, it only covers approximately 5 percent of the cost. An independent assessment of VA burial benefits directed by Congress and published in 2000 recommended, as an option, increasing the plot allowance to $670, which at the time of the assessment represented 13 percent of the average cost of an adult funeral. Since that assessment was published, the major veterans' organizations have persistently recommended that Congress increase this benefit. In its most recent budget submission, the authors of the Independent Budget recommended that the plot allowance be increased to $745. In 2001, Congress took a first step, raising the benefit from $150 to $300. My legislation would take yet another, measured step. Finally, my legislation would authorize $5 million per year under VA's State Cemetery Grant Program for VA to assist States in meeting operational and maintenance expenses. As I mentioned, the State Cemetery Grant Program finances the cost of establishing, expanding, or improving State cemeteries. States must agree to provide suitable land for a cemetery and they must meet administrative, operational, and maintenance costs. My purpose in introducing this aspect of the legislation is twofold. First, VA is in the midst of the largest national cemetery expansion since the Civil War. Guiding its cemetery expansion effort was a prospective look at where and how many veterans will be living 20 years from now. Based on that prospective analysis, national cemeteries are being built in those areas of the country that have veterans' populations of 170,000 or more and that are not residing within, or expected to reside within, 75 miles of an open State or national cemetery. It is therefore highly likely that after this expansion has concluded, no additional national cemeteries will be built for quite some time. Thus, in order to serve veterans' populations in less densely populated areas in the future, VA and the States will need to rely more on the State Cemetery Grant Program. Allowing reimbursement for some maintenance or operational expenses will serve to make the program more attractive to States, which may otherwise decline to participate in the program due to budget constraints. In fact, the 2000 independent assessment I spoke about earlier made the same point, recommending Congressional consideration of amending the grant program to allow for reimbursement of the sort contemplated in my legislation. My second purpose behind this provision is a bit more parochial. There are eight States in the country without any national cemetery, including Idaho. These are States with small or scattered veterans' populations. VA's criteria for establishing national cemeteries makes it unlikely that veterans in these States will ever have access to a national cemetery within the borders of their home State. Yet their service was national in character, and the desire for recognition of that national service through interment in a national cemetery is real, if not practical. It is my opinion that the Federal obligation to veterans residing in States like my own is therefore heightened. And if the only way to heighten that obligation is by requiring reimbursement of a greater share of the expenses now borne by the States, so be it. To my mind, this would be an equitable outcome, and one that I hope VA factors into criteria it will develop should my legislation be enacted. Let me make one final and very important point. The cost of my legislation is in the $8 million per year range. Although I am convinced of the merits of the legislation, I am also committed to adhering to our budget rules which require that appropriate spending offsets be identified before new spending is advanced. I assure my colleagues that should my legislation be reported from the Veterans' Affairs Committee, it will be fully offset in accordance with our rules and my own principle of fiscal discipline. In summary, the Veterans' Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007 will help us along in our collective goal of providing veterans with lasting resting places to honor their lives and service. This is good legislation, and I urge the support of my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing that will continue a positive trend in the provision of benefits to severely injured servicemembers and their families by making assistance available when it is needed most. My bill would give active duty servicemembers who utilize VA's specially adapted housing grant assistance with the ability to also purchase Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance, or VMLI, through VA. Under current law, the receipt of specially adapted housing grants is the gateway to VMLI eligibility. And only those separated from service and legally classified as ``veterans'' are able to purchase coverage through VMLI. Servicemembers and veterans who are blind, have lost the use of both their legs, and who have other severely disabling conditions are eligible to receive up to $50,000 in grants from VA to assist with needed housing adaptations, such as the widening of doorways, the construction of wheelchair ramps, and the installment of handrails. Notwithstanding this grant assistance, servicemembers and veterans must still pay any underlying mortgage that exists on the modified home. To ensure that survivors are not saddled with mortgage debt they cannot afford following the death of a severely disabled veteran, VA's VMLI program is available. Under VMLI, up to $90,000 of coverage, or coverage in the amount of any outstanding mortgage debt, whichever is less, is available. Veterans pay premiums at standard mortality rates and VA contributes subsidy payments so that all program expenses are met. Until recently, grants under the specially adapted housing program could only be made to individuals who had separated from military service. In recognition of what can be an extremely lengthy recovery and separation process for those with profoundly disabling conditions, in 2004 we in Congress allowed housing grants to be made to active duty servicemembers. However, we did not extend the same access to VA's VMLI program for those still on active duty, an oversight that my legislation would remedy. VA estimates that roughly 30 servicemembers per year will receive specially adapted housing grants, thus giving rise to VMLI eligibility should my bill be enacted. Because it is optional, VA expects only 15 servicemembers per year to purchase VMLI policies. Therefore, subsidy costs associated with my legislation are minimal, less than $500,000 over 10 years. This Congress increasingly is recognizing that the benefits provided to our wounded servicemembers need to flow immediately, and that outmoded distinctions between ``veteran'' and ``active duty servicemember'' mean little when it comes to honoring our commitment to them. My legislation continues what I believe is an encouraging trend that looks at the career of a military man or woman as a continuum. It is a continuum that begins the day they enlist and it ends the day they die. Our Government's benefits should reflect that reality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am on the floor, as others have been today, to speak to an issue that I think is appropriate for this day and time. I say so for a variety of reasons but most importantly because it is May 1. Let me put it this way, because I think it sets the context in which I would like to speak for a few moments. Mayday, Mayday, Mayday--do you hear me calling? Do you hear the frustration of the American consumer today who goes to the gas pump and pays record-high gas prices? I saw prices in my State of Idaho today verging on an alltime high--$3.32, $3.35, depending how far you are from the head of the pipeline. Mayday, America. Mayday. The year 1923 is when that term first came into use by Frederick ``Big John'' Mockford in an airport in London, speaking in the French term. What he was saying was: Help me, help me, help me. I do believe that is what the American consumer is saying today--help me. And to the Congress of the United States and to this Senate, that sound ought to be echoing through this Chamber and certainly through the halls and the committee rooms that deal with national energy policy. We are where we are today for absence of policy and for some policy that has driven us to less production and becoming increasingly more reliant upon someone else to produce our energy for us. It is in that context of a Mayday appeal that I speak for a few moments during this noon hour. Here is what the chart shows us very clearly. From 1890 to 2030, these are the trend lines. In 1950, we crossed a unique point when we began to see our demand outstrip our supply, and this now--well over 50 percent of our consumption--is being picked up by other countries in the world that are, in many instances, less friendly to us than we would like. What is happening on May Day--this May Day--to a major supplier to the south of us, a guy by the name of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is privatizing today all of the oil fields where our companies produce. He is bringing them into his control, into his form of petronationalism, and he is saying the priority for Venezuelan oil today is not going to be to the United States, it is going to be to Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Haiti. He is going to become their supplier first. He is also going to leave the World Bank and create the Bank of the South. He is one of our major suppliers, and he is less than friendly. Shouldn't we be speaking out on May Day, as he speaks out toward energy independence, toward a greater sense of our own responsibility toward our own consumer? What is Fidel saying today? He didn't make the parade, apparently, but he sent a letter. He is talking about biofuels and saying that America is shifting toward biofuels and they are going to consume all of the food supply of the hemisphere to produce energy. I find that a bit of a uniqueness. Obviously, while he produces some oil, he ships it off to have it refined, and Hugo Chavez and he are deciding that Venezuela will be the largest supplier. There are a few of us in Congress who read those signals, those senses of emergency, that cry for the ``help me'' that I think the American consumer is speaking out to today. Our committees are working their will at this moment to add to the National Energy Policy Act of 2005, which will continue to push the renaissance of energy production in this country in all forms, not just for hydrocarbons but electricity and other forms, in a way that will increasingly make us independent and self-reliant. Senator Byron Dorgan and I introduced the Safe Energy Act of 2007 a month or so ago, which strikes at the heart of the combination of efforts that will move us further down the road toward accomplishing self-help, self-reliance, and energy independence. In that act, we said conservation would be a part of it, as it should be. I, for the first time, stepped out and said that I would accept mandatory CAFE standards on a growth rate of 4 percent a year to drive the auto industry into greater senses of efficiency and lead us toward greater levels of conservation. That was title I of the SAFE Act which we think the Commerce Committee will mark up in the next week. We spoke to innovation and innovation in the advance of biofuels and the importance of doing that and that we really ought to strive toward the 30 billion gallons, which our President spoke to in the State of the Union, by 2020--15 of that being picked up by corn but more importantly, now, 15 billion gallons being picked up by cellulosic energy--and advancing that as rapidly as we can and getting the loan guarantees out and the grants that will take it out of the lab and cause it to be a standup commercial refinery using straw, corn stover, and all of those types of things which are the production that we think ought to go on in the cellulosic area. That is title II of the bill. We think that will be marked up tomorrow in the Energy Committee. But the one that hasn't yet been marked up and the one I wish to spend a little time on today is the area of continued production of hydrocarbons in the Outer Continental Shelf. I have called this in the past the ``no zone'' speech. Let me combine that with Mayday. While we are saying no, our consumers are saying: Help me, help me, because I am spending more of my discretionary income on consumables and in the form of energy at a rate and level I never had to before. It is causing the American economy to shift significantly. Here are a variety of things we have done over the years that have shaped the Outer Continental Shelf capability. These areas which are pointed out on this map are known reserves of oil. Yet, because of attitudes at the State level, environmental concerns and frustrations, much of that production or the ability to explore within those fields has simply been taken off limits. They became the ``no zone,'' even after technology clearly proved that you can go into these waters, produce there safely, protect the ecosystems involved, and reward the American consumer by less dependence upon foreign oil and reserves. This area here, this small area, was a sale and an area we were able to put through just in the beginning of this year. This, of course, is the area in the gulf that is being heavily drilled today. These are the off-limits areas. I came to the floor some time ago and spoke of what is going on in Cuba, and I said that was an unacceptable thing and we ought to do something about it. So in the legislation we are talking about, for greater flexibility and opportunity in the Outer Continental Shelf, what we are really talking about in the SAFE Act--that last title yet to be introduced-- that really balances conservation with new biofuels and increased production in this area, better known as the northern Cuban basin. It is an area that is off limits to our producers, and Cuba is now moving to produce it. They are going to do so by reaching out to other countries--other than ours because we have a prohibition on our companies doing business there--and they are looking at the French, Spaniards, the Chinese, and others to come and drill. Here is my frustration: While we are saying no, all around our coastlines, just 45 miles off our coastline, the Cubans have let leases for the purpose of drilling. I was in Cuba a few years ago visiting with their Interior Minister, and he said: We want your companies here. Why? Because you have the best technology. You are environmentally proven. You place this valuable ecosystem at less risk. That we know. But our policy today denies us that. There is an interesting little anomaly that happened--and I praise the new Secretary of the Interior for doing what he did--and that was opening, right off the coast of Virginia, an opportunity to seek natural gas and to see if those reserves are out there, which I think will drive increased production. So today I come to the floor on May Day saying: Mayday, America, Mayday, because Americans as they go to the gas pump are saying: Help us, help me; change the way this is happening. America, we have a great opportunity to move ourselves toward energy independence, less dependence on those unstable areas of the world where we now seek well over 50 percent of our hydrocarbon oil base. Shame on us. That is bad policy, and we have the power to change it if we have the will to change it. The will comes from the ability to build a complete portfolio of conservation, new technologies, and current production in areas where we know our reserves are, by building them up during this period of transition as our country moves to new technologies. This is a great opportunity. The only reason we are not doing it is because of resistance right here in the Congress of the United States, in part, put on by pressure from some special interests. But my guess is that if we listen closely to the American consumer today, they would agree that the SAFE Act and all titles of the SAFE Act ought to become public policy and that America clearly ought to be articulating a policy of greater energy independence so that next May Day, we can say: We heard you call out for help, and we are answering that call. Mayday, America, Mayday. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today as the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Akaka, who serves as the Chairman of the Committee, in introducing this important legislation to assist veterans who suffer from a traumatic brain injury. Every so often an issue of incredible importance confronts this institution and government as whole. And when it does, it is critical that we here in Congress cut through the politics of this institution and the red tape of government and do what is right and necessary for Americans in need. The bill Senator Akaka and I are introducing today is one of those times and veterans with traumatic brain injury is one of those issues. Sadly, hundreds and perhaps even thousands of our dedicated servicemen and women are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with mild, moderate, and even severe head trauma. Improvised Explosive Devices detonating regularly throughout Iraq have exposed our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to countless instances in which a TBI can occur. The long- term consequences of these injuries are, in many ways, unknown to us. There's so much modern medicine doesn't know about how the brain functions, let alone how little we know about the consequences of small changes in its functioning. Still, it is incumbent on us to do everything in our power to provide the best care and services to those servicemembers and veterans in need of TBI care and rehabilitation. To that end, Senator Akaka and I believe that quality TBI care must include certain elements, which this legislation would impose on VA. Most important among these new requirements is the directive for VA to provide every veteran who has an inpatient stay for a TBI with an individual plan for rehabilitation and reintegration. This may sound to many of my colleagues like a very simple, and thus unimportant, requirement. But, I believe it is a critical component of recovery. It is a requirement that patients, families, doctors, nurses, social workers, etc., sit down and develop a detailed plan to maximize the chances of recovery and independent living at some point in the future for an injured servicemember or veteran. In short, it is the start of the road to recovery. In addition to the requirement for individual plans, VA must be given some flexibility to seek out private care services when the situation or the severity of the traumatic brain injury calls for it. This legislation would establish the parameters for receipt of that care and I believe send an important message to VA and our wounded veterans that we want the best care possible regardless of whether it is obtained through a door with the letters V-A over them or through a door with a different name. Also, this bill would establish a research, clinical care, and education program for traumatic brain injury. The program would be modeled on VA's very successful Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Care program as well as the special programs for Parkinson's disease and geriatric medicine. The nation must invest in learning more about the debilitating conditions that accompany a traumatic brain injury so that one day we might look forward to better treatment and, most importantly, a better quality of life for these heroes. Finally, the legislation would create a pilot program for assisted living for veterans with severe traumatic brain injury. I recognize that generally assisted living is not a program that VA has embraced in the past. But, the sheer number of those suffering with TBI and the severity of those conditions demand that we once again consider assisted living as a viable means of providing some quality of life to veterans and their families. And I am proud that assisted living will once again be a component of care provided by VA. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. The Chairman and I are very proud of the work we've done together in this legislation. I see a lot of progress in VA with respect to the care they are providing all of our wounded soldiers and veterans. But, more can be done. I think this bill will move VA further in the direction they are heading and provide veterans with traumatic brain injuries an opportunity to achieve a full and productive life. With that, again, I want to again thank Chairman Akaka for his work.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today as the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Akaka, who serves as the Chairman of the Committee, in introducing this important legislation to assist veterans who suffer from a traumatic brain injury. Every so often an issue of incredible importance confronts this institution and government as whole. And when it does, it is critical that we here in Congress cut through the politics of this institution and the red tape of government and do what is right and necessary for Americans in need. The bill Senator Akaka and I are introducing today is one of those times and veterans with traumatic brain injury is one of those issues. Sadly, hundreds and perhaps even thousands of our dedicated servicemen and women are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with mild, moderate, and even severe head trauma. Improvised Explosive Devices detonating regularly throughout Iraq have exposed our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to countless instances in which a TBI can occur. The long- term consequences of these injuries are, in many ways, unknown to us. There's so much modern medicine doesn't know about how the brain functions, let alone how little we know about the consequences of small changes in its functioning. Still, it is incumbent on us to do everything in our power to provide the best care and services to those servicemembers and veterans in need of TBI care and rehabilitation. To that end, Senator Akaka and I believe that quality TBI care must include certain elements, which this legislation would impose on VA. Most important among these new requirements is the directive for VA to provide every veteran who has an inpatient stay for a TBI with an individual plan for rehabilitation and reintegration. This may sound to many of my colleagues like a very simple, and thus unimportant, requirement. But, I believe it is a critical component of recovery. It is a requirement that patients, families, doctors, nurses, social workers, etc., sit down and develop a detailed plan to maximize the chances of recovery and independent living at some point in the future for an injured servicemember or veteran. In short, it is the start of the road to recovery. In addition to the requirement for individual plans, VA must be given some flexibility to seek out private care services when the situation or the severity of the traumatic brain injury calls for it. This legislation would establish the parameters for receipt of that care and I believe send an important message to VA and our wounded veterans that we want the best care possible regardless of whether it is obtained through a door with the letters V-A over them or through a door with a different name. Also, this bill would establish a research, clinical care, and education program for traumatic brain injury. The program would be modeled on VA's very successful Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Care program as well as the special programs for Parkinson's disease and geriatric medicine. The nation must invest in learning more about the debilitating conditions that accompany a traumatic brain injury so that one day we might look forward to better treatment and, most importantly, a better quality of life for these heroes. Finally, the legislation would create a pilot program for assisted living for veterans with severe traumatic brain injury. I recognize that generally assisted living is not a program that VA has embraced in the past. But, the sheer number of those suffering with TBI and the severity of those conditions demand that we once again consider assisted living as a viable means of providing some quality of life to veterans and their families. And I am proud that assisted living will once again be a component of care provided by VA. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. The Chairman and I are very proud of the work we've done together in this legislation. I see a lot of progress in VA with respect to the care they are providing all of our wounded soldiers and veterans. But, more can be done. I think this bill will move VA further in the direction they are heading and provide veterans with traumatic brain injuries an opportunity to achieve a full and productive life. With that, again, I want to again thank Chairman Akaka for his work.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, today with great pride I honor Mountain Home Air Force Base for their recent achievement of winning the Commander in Chief's Annual Award for Installation Excellence for an Air Force base. Over 85 Active-Duty Air Force installations competed this year for the award, and I was extremely pleased to get word that Idaho's own Air Force base came out the winner. Over the years, I have worked very closely with the different wing commanders at Mountain Home Air Force Base to ensure that their installation will provide our soldiers with the best living conditions and optimal training space to ensure that should they be called to duty, they would be fully prepared. I know firsthand that the work being done both at home and abroad by our airmen and soldiers at Mountain Home Air Force Base is among the best our military can offer. Over 500 airmen and crew from Mountain Home Air Force Base are currently deployed in Afghanistan in support of our joint mission with NATO to provide freedom and security from terrorist, and they are serving with great courage and determination. I know that their fellow servicemembers, the Idaho delegation, and all of Idaho await their return and they will be greeted with a hero's welcome. Although they are not in Idaho to celebrate this very prestigious honor from the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Commander in Chief, I know that their contributions greatly aided in Mountain Home Air Force Base receiving this award. COL Tony Rock, wing commander of the 366 Fighting Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base, expressed his pride of winning this award but gave the credit to the 4,000-plus men and women who operate the base on a daily basis. Colonel Rock was quoted as saying, ``This award validates the hard work, commitment and pride of all our Gunfighters who work together to make Mountain Home the best base in the Air Force. I am simultaneously humbled and awed to be part of this team and lead our Gunfighters as we continue to prove we are the premier combat wing in the entire Air Force.'' I couldn't agree more with Colonel Rock's statement. Again, I would like to extend the appreciation and congratulations of myself and all of Idaho to the soldiers and civilians at Mountain Home Air Force Base for their incredible work serving and protecting our Nation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Specialty Crop Competition Act of 2007.'' This bipartisan legislation co- sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, increases the focus on the contribution that specialty crops add to the United States agricultural economy. This bill specifically provides the proper and necessary attention to many challenges faced throughout each segment of the industry. Most do not realize the significance of specialty crops and their value to the U.S. economy and the health of U.S. citizens. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, fruits and vegetables alone added $29.9 billion to the U.S. economy in 2002. This figure does not even include the contribution of nursery and other ornamental plant production, which our bill recognizes. The specialty crop industry also accounts for more than $53 billion in cash receipts for U.S. producers, which is close to 54 percent of the total cash receipts for all crops. A surprising fact to some is that my State of Idaho is a top producer of specialty crops. Idaho proudly boasts production of cherries, table grapes, apples, onions, carrots, several varieties of seed crops and of course one of our most notable specialty crops, potatoes. Maintaining a viable and sustainable specialty crop industry also benefits the health of America's citizens. Obesity continues to plague millions of people today and is a very serious and deepening threat not only to personal health and well-being, but to the resources of the economy as well. This issue is now receiving the necessary attention at the highest levels, and specialty crops will continue to play a prominent role in reversing the obesity trend. The ``Specialty Crop Competition Act'' will also provide a stronger position for the U.S. industry in the global market arena. This legislation promotes initiatives that will combat diseases, both native and foreign, that continue to be used as non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports by foreign governments. Additionally, provisions in this bill seek improvements to federal regulations and resources that impede timely consideration of industry sanitary and phytosanitary petitions. This bill does not provide direct subsidies to producers like other programs. This legislation takes a major step forward to highlight the significance of this industry to the agriculture economy, the benefits to the health of U.S. citizens, and the need for a stable, affordable, diverse, and secure supply of food. Senator Stabenow, I, and our co-sponsors fully intend to work with Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss and the entire Senate Agriculture Committee to include this legislation in the new Farm Bill that Congress will soon be debating. Specialty crops have never sat at the head of the farm policy table, but their importance to our Nation's health, security, and economy cannot be avoided any longer. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration to consider this comprehensive and necessary legislation as we begin to discuss new initiatives for the 2007 Farm Bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Specialty Crop Competition Act of 2007.'' This bipartisan legislation co- sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, increases the focus on the contribution that specialty crops add to the United States agricultural economy. This bill specifically provides the proper and necessary attention to many challenges faced throughout each segment of the industry. Most do not realize the significance of specialty crops and their value to the U.S. economy and the health of U.S. citizens. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, fruits and vegetables alone added $29.9 billion to the U.S. economy in 2002. This figure does not even include the contribution of nursery and other ornamental plant production, which our bill recognizes. The specialty crop industry also accounts for more than $53 billion in cash receipts for U.S. producers, which is close to 54 percent of the total cash receipts for all crops. A surprising fact to some is that my State of Idaho is a top producer of specialty crops. Idaho proudly boasts production of cherries, table grapes, apples, onions, carrots, several varieties of seed crops and of course one of our most notable specialty crops, potatoes. Maintaining a viable and sustainable specialty crop industry also benefits the health of America's citizens. Obesity continues to plague millions of people today and is a very serious and deepening threat not only to personal health and well-being, but to the resources of the economy as well. This issue is now receiving the necessary attention at the highest levels, and specialty crops will continue to play a prominent role in reversing the obesity trend. The ``Specialty Crop Competition Act'' will also provide a stronger position for the U.S. industry in the global market arena. This legislation promotes initiatives that will combat diseases, both native and foreign, that continue to be used as non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports by foreign governments. Additionally, provisions in this bill seek improvements to federal regulations and resources that impede timely consideration of industry sanitary and phytosanitary petitions. This bill does not provide direct subsidies to producers like other programs. This legislation takes a major step forward to highlight the significance of this industry to the agriculture economy, the benefits to the health of U.S. citizens, and the need for a stable, affordable, diverse, and secure supply of food. Senator Stabenow, I, and our co-sponsors fully intend to work with Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss and the entire Senate Agriculture Committee to include this legislation in the new Farm Bill that Congress will soon be debating. Specialty crops have never sat at the head of the farm policy table, but their importance to our Nation's health, security, and economy cannot be avoided any longer. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration to consider this comprehensive and necessary legislation as we begin to discuss new initiatives for the 2007 Farm Bill.

Mr. CRAIG

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