Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Yesterday was the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, which is remembered as one of the greatest intelligence failures in our country's history. The desire to prevent future Pearl Harbors helped lead to the creation of our national intelligence community in 1947. In the 15 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, there has been a growing awareness that our national intelligence community is in need of serious reform. Despite frequent reviews of the intelligence community's failures and structural problems--including the Hart-Rudman Commission; the Gilmore Commission; the Bremer Commission; the Congressional Investigation of 9/11; and the 9/11--there has been continued reluctance and resistance to reform. Recent intelligence failures--most notably the failure to detect the September 11 plot, and the massive intelligence failures that led us to war in Iraq--have given new exposure to the problem and new momentum to reform efforts. I am extremely pleased that we are now in a position to enact serious intelligence reform legislation for the first time in over 50 years. I consider this legislation to be one of the most important enactments of my 18 years in the U.S. Senate. There are several elements of this legislation which warrant more detailed comment. One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the element that Senator Roberts was just discussing--the need to centralize the intelligence agencies is not an end in itself, but a platform from which we can move to decentralize. As the United States military transformed itself from the military of San Juan Hill and the World Wars, it first needed to centralize, under the National Security Act of 1947, consolidating the secretaries of the Army and Navy into the Department of Defense, and then to decentralize, under the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986 into the joint commands of the modern military. Our intelligence community needs to transform itself and move from being designed around functions--such as electronic eavesdropping, or satellite surveillance--to a focus on missions, such as counterterrorism or counterproliferation. This legislation makes the appropriate and necessary first step of centralizing the intelligence community under a Director of National Intelligence. It also lays the foundation for the next step, which is decentralizing the intelligence community through the establishment of mission-based intelligence centers. Two are established by statute-- Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation--and the legislation gives the DNI the power to establish other centers, to focus on those current or emerging threats he or she deems to be of priority importance. Among the shortcomings referred to earlier, one of the first and foremost is obviously an underdeveloped capacity for gathering human intelligence. Our intelligence community has come to rely too heavily on electronic eavesdropping and satellite surveillance, and human intelligence has been neglected. A case could be made that both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq were the products of our inadequate human intelligence capabilities. We must make a major effort to rebuild our capabilities, and this legislation begins to address that problem. One of the most important elements of a human intelligence program is a corps of skilled and dedicated linguists. Unfortunately, while our intelligence agencies still possess a more-than-adequate number of Russian speakers, they lack individuals proficient in the Middle Eastern and Central Asian languages that are of obvious current importance. This legislation, along with language in the Defense authorization bill that establishes a Reserve Officers Training Corps counterpart for the intelligence community, helps to address this problem as well. The third intelligence-related item deserving particular attention is the issue of excessive classification. I want to comment senator Wyden and Senator Lott, who were very involved in this aspect of the legislation. Our intelligence community has developed an unhealthy obsession with secrecy, and this has often led to bad analysis and bad decisions. This obsession with secrecy prevented intelligence agencies that had knowledge of various elements of the 9/11 plot from ``connecting the dots'' and realizing that a major terrorist operation was being plotted on American soil. This obsession with secrecy contributed to inadequate scrutiny of intelligence relating to Iraq, and as a result we went to war because of weapons that did not exist, and terrorist connections that appear to have been imaginary. This obsession with secrecy poses a serious and continuing threat to our national security. As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, ``Secrecy is for losers.'' If we do not want to lose in our struggle with the various threats we face today, we must abandon this unhealthy obsession. This legislation addresses this problem by directing that more rational guidelines for intelligence classification be established, and that an independent board be empowered to review these decisions. This is an important first step toward abandoning this dangerous obsession, and making sure that secrecy decisions are made for reasons of national security, rather than agencies trying to bury their mistakes. Madam President, what we are doing today is an important step, but it is not by any means the last step. Some of these steps are rather tangential to the issue of intelligence reform. For example, this legislation includes a provision requiring face-to-face interviews with visa applicants. If we are to implement this provision effectively we must seriously consider increasing the capacity of our consular service. Currently, in Brazil, visa applicants must travel to one of three large cities in order to get a visa for travel to the United States. Since Brazil is the size of the continental United States, and these three cities are located close together, this is the equivalent of telling Americans who wish to secure a visa to Mexico that they must first travel to either Dallas, Chicago, or Cleveland. While it is probably not cost-effective to open new consulates in every city that might need visa services, we should at lest open more visa offices, so that these interviews can be conducted without unduly inconveniencing our foreign guests. This legislation also includes a section addressing the United States' relationship with Saudi Arabia. It points out, and I quote, that ``the Government of Saudi Arabia has not always responded to promptly or fully to United States requests for assistance in the global war on Islamist terrorism,'' and particularly cities the Saudi government's inattention to the problem of terrorist financing. I would add that we have compelling evidence to believe that Saudi interests actually played a role in financing insurgents in Iraq and earlier the 9/11 hijackers. The extent of Saudi involvement in 9/11 was detailed in a twenty-seven page section of our 2002 joint House-Senate Intelligence Committees report on the attacks of September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, every one of those twenty-seven pages was classified. This means that the American people have, in that and other instances, been denied important information about our relationship with Saudi Arabia. I hope that this intelligence reform legislation calling for more dialogue on the U.S.-Saudi relationship is heeded, and that increased attention to this relationship will lead to greater transparency and candor. Madam President, as I said in my farewell speech yesterday, in a quote from Winston Churchill, ``This is not the end, nor is it the beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning''. This Churchillian wisdom also applies to what we are accomplishing today. There is more that still needs to be done as we move beyond the end of the beginning of intelligence reform. Let me start with the President's responsibilities. The President will have the responsibility for making a series of critical appointments, and he must appoint creative, dynamic and extremely hard- working people who can be effective in the challenging new roles that we are creating. He must also ensure that the people he appoints promote a value system that is conducive to open, honest and effective intelligence gathering and analysis. And he must also manage the relationships between the new DNI and existing department and agency heads--most notably the Secretary of Defense--in order to ensure that the goals of intelligence reform are realized. The new DNI will also have tremendous responsibility. He or she will have to establish clear priorities for the intelligence community, and this will be reflected in the National Intelligence Centers that are created to work, alongside the National Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Centers. The DNI must also revise current budget priorities, such as the research and development budgets, and establish community-wide personnel policies that support the recruitment, training and retention of effective intelligence community personnel. Finally, there will be a responsibility here on the Congress. In the Senate we have taken steps to reform our oversight of intelligence. Terms limits on the Intelligence Committee have been removed. By creating a new appropriation subcommittee for intelligence we have freed the intelligence budget from its previously unbreakable link to the defense budget. These are good starts. But we will also have to look at the culture of the congressional oversight committees, and make sure that they direct their attention to the front windshield of the future, and the threats that are coming at us, and spend relatively less of their time on looking through the rear view mirror at accidents that have already occurred. By its nature, the intelligence community is going to create accidents from time to time. They need to be reviewed. But we cannot afford for them to consume all of our oversight responsibility. It is in the future that new threats are to be found, and it is our responsibility to be able to assure the American people that our intelligence community is capable of identifying those threats, and of providing information to the appropriate decision makers, in order to prevent those threats from becoming the next Pearl Harbor, or the next 9/11. Madam President, in conclusion, I would like to note that this bill would not have been possible without an extraordinary effort by dozens of members of Congress, the Joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry members and staff, the 9/11 Commission, and, particularly, the families of the victims of 9/11. Today is a celebration of the success of urgently needed reform, finally overcoming the inertia of the status quo. But, this is only the end of the beginning. The President, the Congress, those Americans who do and will serve the intelligence community, bear the responsibility of ensuring that the promise of enhanced security through reformed intelligence is achieved. The fulfillment of this promise will be neither quick nor easy. The most important undertakings seldom are. But the goal is worthy of our most steadfast commitment to its attainment.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, I am going to submit for the Record a fuller statement, but in deference to the limited time we have, I have a few brief comments on what I consider to be one of the most important enactments of my 18 years in the Senate. This is an accomplishment which did not happen beginning this summer but rather has been underway for at least the 15 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. I am extremely pleased we have now arrived at the point we may be in a position to enact serious intelligence reform for the first time in over 50 years. There are many important aspects of this legislation. One, it will centralize the intelligence agencies, not as an end in itself, but to create the platform from which we can then decentralize. As Senator Roberts was discussing, in 1947, the various separate military branches--there was a Secretary of the Army, there was a Secretary of the Navy--were brought together under a Secretary of Defense. Then, 39 years later, that centralized organization was decentralized into the combatant joint commands that now are the principal warfighters for America. That is exactly the process anticipated here. The only major difference is it will not take 39 years to get from centralization to decentralization. A second aspect of this bill I point out, we have much work to do in the area of human intelligence. The case could be made that both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq were a product of our inadequate human intelligence capabilities. We must make a major effort to rebuild our human capabilities. This bill takes a step in that direction through emphasis on more linguistic training in the Defense bill that was the establishment of what I refer to as the intelligence equivalent of the Reserve Officers Training Corps. We need many other initiatives to fill this gaping hole in our intelligence. The third area--and I particularly commend Senator Wyden and Senator Lott and others involved in this--is to try to make our security classifications more truly an issue of security rather than agencies trying to bury their mistakes. In this legislation we establish a new classification board that will review decisions that are made in the executive branch to determine if there has been an excessive use of secrecy. Our former colleague, Senator Pat Moynihan, used to say that secrecy is for losers. We do not want the United States to be in that category of losers. What we are doing today is an important step. It is not by any means the last step. Let me mention a few things that will need to flow from our decision today. Some are rather tangential to the issue of intelligence reform. As an example, we are now requiring any visa applicant to have a face-to-face encounter with a visa agent. That may sound like an appropriate protection against inappropriate people getting access to the United States. There are also, however, very practical matters. A country that will be of increasing significance to the United States is the country of Brazil. Brazil is a country which is the size of the continental United States plus a second Texas. It is the fourth largest country in population in the world. Today we have three places in which a person could get a visa. They are relatively close together. It would be as if the only place you could get a visa in the United States was Washington, New York, or Boston. We have to develop some strategy to make it more reasonable for persons around the world, but particularly in these large-sized nations that are so important to our economy, to be able to have reasonable access to the visa process. The second part of this legislation relates to the United States relationship with Saudi Arabia. It points out that the Government of Saudi Arabia has not always responded promptly or fully to the United States request for assistance in the global war on Islamic terrorism. I believe we need an enormous increase in the transparency of the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and that is a goal we have been retreating from. In the joint House-Senate report on the factors that led to 9/11, an 800-page report contained 27 pages on the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11. Every one of those 27 pages was classified, so the American people in that and other instances have been denied access to the information about our relationship with Saudi Arabia. I hope the provision contained in this legislation will move us toward a greater frankness and candor in that important relationship. Finally, this legislation places responsibility for important future actions in at least three places. One of those is the President. The President will have the responsibility for making a series of critical appointments so there will be the human beings responsible for implementing this legislation in a creative, dynamic manner. He also must assure there is a value system in relationship to this new office and other positions which are also his responsibility to appoint. The most notable of these will be between the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Defense. It will require continued Presidential involvement and monitoring to assure that relationship achieves rather than frustrates the objectives of this legislation. The new Director of National Intelligence will have enormous responsibility. He or she will have to establish clear priorities for the intelligence community, and this will be reflected in the creation of additional national intelligence centers. These are the decentralizing units that have been established in the case of terrorism and counterproliferation and will be under the directive of the DNI to establish in other emerging threat areas. The DNI must also revise current budget priorities, particularly in areas such as research and development, to reflect response to our emerging threats. He also will have to establish communitywide personnel policies that support the recruitment, training, and retention of the most effective intelligence community personnel. Finally, there will be a responsibility here on the Congress. In the Senate, we have taken steps to reform our oversight of intelligence. No longer will there be an 8-year term limit. No longer will intelligence budgets go through the Defense subcommittee but, rather, through their own Appropriations subcommittees. These are good starts. But we are also going to have to look at the culture of the congressional oversight committees, focusing much more on the future and the threats that are coming at us and relatively give less of our time to constant focus on the accidents that can be seen through the rearview mirror. By its nature, the intelligence community is going to create accidents from time to time. They need to be reviewed, but we cannot afford for them to be totally consuming in terms of our oversight responsibility. It is in the future that the threats are to be found, and it is our responsibility to be able to assure the American people that our intelligence communities are capable of identifying those threats and providing information to decisionmakers to mitigate the chances that those threats will become the next Pearl Harbor or the next 9/11 tragedy. Madam President, in conclusion, I thank all the people who have played such a significant role. Obviously, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman deserve special notice. But there are many other people in this Chamber today, such as Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller, who have played a continuing role in seeing that our intelligence community is able to serve its responsibility to the people of America. Thank you very much.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to commend Senator John Breaux and his staff for their excellent work on the Elder Justice Act. They have worked long and hard on this legislation, and I share their strong desire to see it pass the Senate this year. I would like to share the comments I received from two Florida attorneys, Nick Cox and Mark Shalloway, who have extensive knowledge and experience in elder justice issues. Nick Cox is a professor at the Stetson University College of Law in St. Petersburg, where he specializes in elder consumer protection matters and works on a special Federal project within the Elder Law Center. Mr. Cox, a former State prosecutor, worked for Attorneys General Bob Butterworth and Charlie Crist as their acting central Florida regional deputy and bureau chief of the Economic Crimes Division, which is the Florida Attorney General's consumer protection unit. Mr. Cox's comments are as follows: I feel very strongly about passage of this act from a consumer protection standpoint. At this time I have been researching criminal elder exploitation issues and have found that there is a complete lacking in good support research. Despite several attempts to get a statistical handle on how bad criminal exploitation of the elderly is, the reports that have been done have been consistently criticized or found to be scientifically/statistically deficient. The Elder Justice Act calls for such research to be done on a national level and would provide the needed data that could assist those of us in the field of identifying the primary issues and hopefully some suggestions for solutions to the problem. I also am very excited about the call in the Elder Justice Act for nationwide centers of excellence for study into these matters. We have already begun such work here at Stetson, but we can only address it on a regional basis here given the magnitude of our senior populations in Florida and throughout the Southeast United States. However, the work we have done so far has been very well received and applauded by those in the aging network. I think the Elder Justice Act would also give us some significant strides forward in that respect as well. I also, as a former prosecutor, appreciate the attention it seems to give to increasing prosecutions. From the exploitation standpoint, I have experienced the positive outcome of criminally charging scam artists and the resulting change in business practices in that area. My office conducted undercover sting operations with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Once we convinced a prosecutor to charge a few of the salesmen and business owners who were targeting and scaring seniors into buying unneeded and overpriced equipment, there was an immediate change in the manner in which other companies conducted business. Anything we can do to encourage or mandate criminal prosecutions will be a positive step. I think the Elder Justice Act starts us in the right direction. Mark Shalloway is a practicing attorney in West Palm Beach and has extensive experience in elder abuse and exploitation. Mr. Shalloway's comments are as follows: Elder Law attorneys, including my Florida colleagues see a great deal of elder abuse and financial exploitation on a weekly to monthly basis in our offices. The National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) is one of the five founding members of the Elder Justice Coalition that has worked for several years to get this piece of legislation passed. Senator Breaux and other supporters, like yourself, deserve much credit for keeping this bill on the front burner during a year when few bills have been addressed. The revised version of S. 333 that the Finance Committee has marked up is not as comprehensive as the original bill, but is a great starting point and should be passed by the full Senate as soon as possible. As a Long-Term Care Ombudsman in Florida, I am anecdotally aware of the difficulties in identifying and prosecuting crimes against the elderly. This Act should give greater recognition to a silent but huge and growing problem. I agree with the comments of Mr. Cox and Mr. Shalloway, and have thus strongly supported passage of the Elder Justice Act. During Finance Committee deliberations of the Elder Justice Act, I added two critically important provisions to the bill. These amendments strengthened the bill immensely, would have greatly improved patient safety in long-term care facilities, and, in fact, would have saved lives. Therefore, I am greatly disappointed that my patient safety provisions were the basis of an objection from Senator Gregg. That objection resulted in the provisions being stripped from the Elder Justice Act. The result? The legislation will do less on behalf of our elderly Americans than it could have done, and the elderly will continue to suffer from adverse events and death as a result of medication errors. This disappoints me deeply. I would like to briefly describe the two amendments I had hoped would be part of the Elder Justice Act. The first would have provided grants to long-term care facilities to improve quality and prevent neglect by improving patient safety and reducing health care complications and deaths resulting from medication errors in long-term care settings. Section 108 of the Medicare Modernization Act gave authority to the Secretary to make such grants available to physicians in order to improve the quality of care and patient safety in physician offices. We should strive for no less for our patients in long-term care facilities. According to the Institute of Medicine, medical errors cause up to 98,000 deaths in this country each year, in addition to otherwise avoidable injuries, hospitalizations, and expenses. Although technologies are available to reduce errors and save lives, start-up costs and a lack of awareness have slowed the diffusion of these technologies, and prevented our long-term care facilities and elderly patients from reaping the benefits of these technologies. The grant program would improve patient safety among the elderly by reducing medication errors in long-term care facilities. Grant money could be used by long-term care facilities to purchase proven technologies; the adoption of computer physician order entry systems, for example, is an essential component of any effective strategy to reduce medication errors. Purchase and deployment of such systems is a substantial investment. Costs can delay the rapid introduction of new information technologies into long-term care facilities that already are grappling with other major financial challenges. The grant program would have reduced this barrier by providing financial incentives for long term care facilities to adopt the resource intensive information technologies essential to system wide strategies for reducing and eventually ending most medication errors. We know how to improve patient safety. We know how to save lives. My provision to create a grant program would have done just that, and I deeply regret having to strike the provision because of Senator Gregg's objection to it. My second amendment would have required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a plan for adopting open standards to enable improved electronic submission of clinical data by long term care facilities and allowing electronic transmission of data using such standards. Although the Medicare Modernization Act requires the Secretary to develop uniform standards relating to requirements for electronic prescription drug programs, there is no provision for adopting uniform standards for data not related to prescription drug programs and no requirement that the Secretary allow long term care facilities to submit data electronically to HHS using uniform open standards. The use of open standards is critical to ensuring that systems are able to communicate with each other and without human manipulation, thus allowing information to be processed automatically and quickly. Automatic, expedited processing of information will reduce neglect in the form of medical errors and save lives. Currently, data may only be transmitted electronically using spreadsheets, PDFs, or SAS transport files. This form of submission does not allow systems to communicate with each other, and slows the processing of information. I would like to explain the importance of this amendment to my constituents back in Florida and to people throughout our country. Flu season is approaching. Without timely and accurate information to guide public health officials and physicians, seniors in my State and throughout the country are at risk. But, the public health system currently relies on a slow and unreliable methods of tracking outbreaks such as postcards and phonecalls from physicians and other medical professionals. If I want to get information on the health status of 290 million Americans, post cards and telephone calls simply aren't adequate. We need to use electronic reporting based on some common method of collecting that data to make public health safer. Vioxx provides another example. Vioxx is a drug used for arthritis by seniors throughout the world; it was withdrawn by its manufacturer this fall. Vioxx was first sold in the United States 5 years ago and has been marketed in more than 80 countries. Worldwide sales of Vioxx in 2003 were $2.5 billion. It is a major drug with broad use. But, the FDA relies on slow and unreliable methods of tracking problems associated with drugs that may only appear after they go into broad use. Although prescriptions are one of the most thoroughly computerized areas in medicine, the FDA relies on slow and unreliable methods to track medical problems resulting from drug use. We need to use electronic reporting based on common method of collecting that data to make drug use safer. One last example: heart conditions are one of the leading diseases affecting Medicare patients and heart attacks can result in deaths and high costs. Many heart attack victims can be helped if they receive drugs to assist their damaged heart while it recovers. CMS studies indicate that many of the victims do not receive those medications. But, CMS collects that data with great effort--relying on many health professionals to extract data from clinical records and summarize the data for analysis. By the time the data is available, the patient has met their fate and the time for correcting a mistake, for getting them a lifesaving drug, has passed. We need to use electronic reporting based on a common method of collecting data to improve quality of care and patient safety for those in long-term care facilities, and for all Medicare patients. I had hoped to see these measures pass in my final days in the Senate and thus leave patients with a safer medical system. I am deeply disappointed in the removal of the amendments from the Elder Justice Act. However because of my great desire to see the Elder Justice Act go through, I removed my hold on the legislation on Wednesday, November 17. It is my understanding that the Elder Justice Act has not yet cleared the Senate because of Republican objections to the substance of the legislation. I share Senator Breaux's desire to see the legislation enacted this year, and fervently hope that may still be possible.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the passage of S. 2484, which reflects a compromise agreement on a new system for compensating physicians and dentists in the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care system, as well as alternative work schedules for VA nurses. VA doctors and dentists have not gotten a pay adjustment in over a decade. All of these measures are aimed at improving VA's ability to recruit and retain quality health care professionals. I would like to highlight some of the key aspects of this legislation. The compromise agreement would set forth a three-tiered system for paying VA physicians and dentists. The three tiers consist of base, market, and performance pay. The base pay element is similar to that employed by other Federal agencies, also known as the General Schedule, GS, system. As such, increases would be guaranteed for every 2 years a physician or dentist remains employed by VA. The second component of the new pay system is market pay. This element would be implemented by the Secretary in the form of pay bands that will be determined by surveys of regional salaries in the academic and private sectors. Also relevant to the market pay determinations are factors such as the scarcity, or abundance, of certain specialty physicians, type and years of experience, and board certifications. Finally, the Secretary would consult with professional review panels composed of other physicians or dentists. The final component is performance pay. Performance pay would be awarded to doctors and dentists if they meet certain goals and measures set forth by the Secretary. Currently, VA has extensive performance measures that it utilizes to motivate its health care providers and ensure quality of care. This element has a maximum of $15,000 or 7.5 percent of the sum of the base and market pay. One other major section of this agreement would establish alternative work schedules for VA nurses. It is widely known that the entire country is suffering from a nursing shortage. VA anticipates that it will be hit especially hard by the retirement of a significant portion of its nursing workforce over the next 10 years. S. 2484 would allow VA to employ different types of working schedules in order to attract more nurses to the system. I am proud to have worked on this valuable piece of legislation for our Nation's veterans, and I thank my colleagues in both Chambers of Congress for their support.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the passage of H.R. 3936, which is essentially a conference report on various veterans' health care measures. This bill will go far in giving the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, the tools it needs to continue providing high-quality health care to our Nation's veterans. Though the bill contains many important provisions, I would like to draw attention to just a few of its key ones. H.R. 3936 would authorize specialized centers to improve the rehabilitation services available to veterans suffering from multiple combat injuries. The centers would focus on all aspects involved in the development of improved rehabilitation programs, including through research, education, and clinical activities. These comprehensive centers are designed specifically to fill the gap that currently exists in the treatment of the complex injuries that result from modern conflict. Due to technological advancements in warfare and body armor, as well as improvements in battlefield medical care, an increased number of service personnel are surviving wounds that probably would have been fatal in previous wars. The centers would be part of a larger collaboration effort between the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, and the Department of Defense, DoD, in order to improve the rehabilitation process and treatment of these service members once they have returned from overseas. The initiative as a whole truly represents the way in which VA health care is evolving with changes in the areas of warfare and health care delivery. The Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004 also would require VA to track waiting times for specialty care services and subsequently issue to Congress a report on any such waiting times of more than 3 months. VA has been suffering from a severe shortage of specialty care physicians. This shortage has led to significant increases in the time it takes for veterans to get appointments for specialty services like audiology and ophthalmology. This compromise legislation would also provide a fix for the way VA per diem payments to State homes for veterans are handled, as they relate to Medicaid. Recently, many State homes have become Medicaid- certified to secure eligibility for payment for any veteran who qualifies under the Medicaid program. However, Medicaid officials determined that VA per diem payments made to State homes for the care of veterans are ``additional payments'' made on behalf on an individual patient. Thus, VA's per diem payments must be reimbursed to the Medicaid program. This provision would specify that per diem payments made by VA for the care of veterans in State homes will not be used to offset or reduce any other payment made to assist veterans in securing health care services. The impact of this change will be felt in many States across the country, including my home State of Florida. Mr. President, I am proud to have contributed to legislation that is so vital to the continued provision of quality health care to our Nation's veterans. I thank my colleagues in both Chambers of Congress for their support of this measure.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to announce the passage of S. 2486, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004, by both Chambers of Congress. This bill, which I shall call the compromise agreement, is the final version of a veterans omnibus bill. The compromise agreement will improve and expand a host of veterans benefits, including: survivors benefits for spouses with dependent children; housing benefits; and educational benefits for Guard and Reserve members, veterans, and spouses of veterans killed on active duty. It is very appropriate that at a time when our airmen, soldiers, sailors and marines are in harm's way, that we remember the sacrifices that those before them have made on behalf of this great Nation by improving and expanding veterans benefits for our Nation's bravest and their families. I will briefly highlight some of the more important provisions. For further explanation of the proposed legislation please see the Joint Explanatory Statement, which accompanied the passage of the bill. Dependency and indemnity compensation is a monthly benefit paid to eligible survivors of service members who died on active duty, and of certain veterans. A larger monthly benefit is paid to surviving spouses with children under the age of 18. Under this legislation, dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors, with dependent children, of spouses killed on active duty would be increased by $250 a month, for 2 years, beginning on the date when entitlement to benefits begins. A VA contracted study found that spouses with children had a higher level of unmet need than spouses without children. This provision is included to further aid the transition of surviving spouses with dependent children. We must make every effort to make certain that the families of service members who paid the ultimate sacrifice have their needs met. Owning a home of one's own is the American Dream. This legislation would make that dream a reality for more of our veterans by increasing the maximum amount of the VA home loan guaranty. The current VA loan limit of $240,000 restricts beneficiaries from using the guaranty because it is insufficient to cover median housing prices in many parts of the Nation. Section 403 of the compromise agreement would increase the maximum VA loan amount to $333,700. It would also index the loan limit to 25 percent of the conforming loan limit for a single-family residence as set by Freddie Mac. This would allow the loan limit to continue to rise with the cost of housing inflation automatically. This change, coupled with the reinstatement of the VA adjustable rate mortgage loan program and improvement of the hybrid adjustable rate mortgage loan program will allow many more veterans to be able to purchase a home. The second half of the American Dream is a college education. Educational assistance is provided to the surviving spouse of a service member or veteran who died of a service-connected injury, or the spouse of a veteran who is rated by VA to be totally and permanently disabled. The spouse has 10 years to use the entitlement. However, many surviving spouses, during this difficult transitional period, are busy raising children and working making it impossible to use the education benefit. This legislation would give an additional 10 years to the surviving spouse of a service member who died of a service-connected disability to use the benefit. Under current law, a member of the Selected Reserve or National Guard must contribute a nonrefundable $1,200 in order to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill education program. However, a member of the Selected Reserve must spend one year on active duty before being eligible for the program. Section 109 of the committee bill would create flexibility and allow the Montgomery GI Bill participation fee to be collected not later than 1 year after the completion of 2 years of active duty, ensuring that the Reserve or Guard has become eligible by satisfying the service requirement. With the costs of attending college rising, it is important that we do as much for our veterans as possible so that they may reach their academic objectives. This legislation would allow VA to reimburse eligible beneficiaries for the cost of certain national admission tests, such as the Law School Admission Test, Graduate Record Exam, Graduate Management Admission Test, and Scholastic Aptitude Test, and for course credit at institutions of higher learning, such as the Advanced Placement Exam and College-Level Examination Program. In keeping with this committee's continuing effort to aid veterans in attaining appropriate education and employment opportunities, this legislation improves the full-time apprenticeship and on-job training programs under the MGIB. Section 103 of the compromise agreement, for more than a 2-year period, would increase the full-time VA monthly educational assistance allowance payable to individuals participating in these training programs. For the first 6 months of training, the monthly benefit would increase to 85 percent from 75 percent; for the second 6 months, 65 percent from 55 percent; and the remainder of months, 45 percent from 35 percent. Additionally, section 104 of the compromise agreement authorizes VA to pay educational benefits to veterans participating in competency-based apprenticeships, in addition to time-based apprenticeships, bringing the VA program in line with the way most apprenticeship programs are structured today. These provisions show our veterans America's continuing unwavering support of the service and sacrifice that they have made on behalf of this country. Particularly at a time when we are at war, we must ensure our service members that we will fulfill the commitment promised by Abraham Lincoln, ``to care for him that shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' In conclusion, I specifically thank Senator Specter and his benefits staff for their work on this comprehensive bill, specifically Bill Tuerk, Jon Towers and Chris McNamee, and my staff--Buddy Menn, Mary Schoelen, Dahlia Melendrez, Ted Pusey, Amanda Krohn, and Tandy Barrett, who recently left the committee, for all of their hard work in helping to put this legislation together. I thank my colleagues for their support of this legislation on behalf of America's veterans and their families.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes to deliver a farewell address.

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

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, my 18-year tenure in the Senate has capped an extremely satisfying personal experience with great rewards and gratification of public service. These have been some of the most significant influences on my life. The greatest influence, of course, has been my family. I was born into a family with good values and an admiration for education and an interest in politics. In February of 1936, my mother and father made two significant decisions. First, my father, who was a mining engineer by education and a dairy farmer by occupation, a man who had become extremely distressed at the level of underworld corruption in Dade County, FL, decided to run for the Florida State Senate to represent that county on a platform of cleaning up underworld corruption. The second decision my parents made in February of 1936 was to have a baby. I was the happy result of that second decision. My mother says that I came by my political instincts from the womb, that she spent her whole pregnancy going to political activities and that I became addicted. Throughout my public career, I have had the love and support of my partner of 45 years, Adele. No person in public life could have a more loving, a more caring, and a more contributing partner than I. At one point, Adele used to be nervous in public settings. Today, I wish I had her calm, her persuasiveness, her effectiveness in public settings. Together, we have had the privilege of raising four wonderful daughters, two of whom were born after our first election to public office. All of those qualities have been enhanced during my Senate years, including the addition of 11 grandchildren. On Thanksgiving Day I shared a special tradition with 9 of those 11 grandchildren when they joined me here at this desk on the Senate floor and observed and critiqued my skills--and lack of skills--as I carved my name into the Senate desk. The second greatest influence is my home, the State of Florida. I thought I knew a lot about Florida as a native and as a two-term Governor, but I have learned so much more during the last 18 years. Since 1974, I have been taking different jobs, jobs alongside fellow Floridians, and as of last Thursday I have done 406 of these workdays; 214 of them have been done since I became a Member of the Senate. Even though my day job is 1,000 miles away from where many Floridians live, these workdays have been an important part of maintaining a close relationship with my fellow Floridians and reminding me what our priorities should be on their behalf here in Washington. Workdays and my experiences in Congress have taught me ways in which the Federal Government affects the lives of typical Americans and, most acutely, Floridians. I come from a State which is marked with dramatic growth in a very fragile environment, with a close affiliation with the countries to the south of the United States, a State in which one out of five of our citizens is over the age of 65, and therefore programs such as Medicare and Social Security take on a very special significance. How we conduct a law-based immigration system with humanity intimately affects many of our people, as does the obligation to use power responsibly. All of these issues I have learned about at greater depth during my service in the Senate. What I have also gained in my three terms here is an appreciation of the institution of the Senate and the unique role it plays in balancing our Government in order to avoid excessive power falling into the hands of any one person or governmental institution. One of our greatest responsibilities as Members of the Senate is to assure an independent judiciary. I am especially pleased that I was able to join my Florida colleagues in the Senate in establishing and maintaining a bipartisan, merit-based process by which we recommended and confirmed applicants for the Federal judiciary. Particularly, I am gratified by the work I did with former Senator Connie Mack. As a Democrat and as a Republican, we forwarded outstanding judicial candidates to both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Because this process was based on judicial merit, Florida nominees have been uniformly and expeditiously accepted for nomination and confirmation. I also came to see the Senate as our country's best graduate school, offering access to private seminars with the best and the brightest, supplemented by outside organizations such as the Aspen Institute's congressional program and the InterAmerican Dialog's Focus on Hemispheric Issues. Finally, Mr. President, as with you and your father, I came to appreciate the people of the Senate. Simply put, I enjoy being around politicians and the people who love politics, including my staff and the family of the Senate, and including the journalists who cover our activities. I value my relationship with each of my colleagues, and I wish I had the time to tell a story about each of you. Mr. President, your father was one of the first people I met when I came into the Senate. We had a number of things in common in our background and quickly formed a friendship which was one of the most significant parts, particularly, of my early years in the Senate. My grief at his loss is diluted by the knowledge not only that he has been followed by his son, but that his son is a person of such exemplary qualities as you represent. I would also like to single out one of my colleagues, a non- Floridian, as representative of the over 200 people with whom I have served during my tenure in the Senate. Senator Jay Rockefeller has been very special to me. We served as Governors at the same time. Jay, as much as anyone, encouraged me to run for the Senate. I especially treasure the relationships I have had with my congressional political mentors such as Congressman Danny Fascell and Senator, later Congressman, Claude Pepper, and my Florida colleagues in this institution: Lawton Chiles, Connie Mack, and Bill Nelson. Bill Nelson is a man I have known for over 40 years. In each stage of his life he has been committed to public service and to excellence in the execution of that public service. It has been a joy for the last 4 years jointly representing our 17 million constituents with Bill. I greatly admire his contributions to Florida and to the Nation. I wish to Senator Nelson a long tenure in the Senate. Florida and America will be better places because of his service. I am also hugely grateful to those who have been willing to share this journey with me, the tens of thousands of people who have worked with me in my successful statewide campaigns, and the over 1,000 people who have joined me in public service in appointive or staff positions. I regret that I do not have time today to name all of them, but illustrative of all of them I will mention a few: Buddy Shorstein, Ken Klein, and Buddy Menn, all of whom have served as chiefs of staff in the Senate; Gary Smith, Dick Burroughs, Charles Reed, Jay Hakes, and Tom Herndon, who served in a similar position when I was Governor of Florida; Mary Chiles, Ellen Roth, Lula Rodriguez, Susan McGinn, and Lydia Mount; Al Cumming and Bob Filippone; Mark Block, John Provenzano, and Paul Anderson--these wonderful people and a thousand more who have shared this joyful experience in public service. Winston Churchill once declared: Now is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. My friends, the Senate needs to regain its tradition of controlled partisanship; in other words, placing country before party. Another of my Florida political mentors, former Governor and Senator, Spessard Holland, once said that it was the jet airplane that caused the greatest change in the culture of the Senate. Prior to the jet airplane, Senator Holland and his wife would come in the first week of January to Washington, would settle in the hotel where they would live while they were here, and they would spend the next 6 to 7 months doing the business of America. While they were doing that, they would spend time with the families of their colleagues. They would become more than just occasional colleagues. They would become genuine friends. It was out of that development of relationships across regions and across parties that the Senate came to earn the title of ``the world's most exclusive club.'' And it was the club where the essential bond was that of common respect. The jet airplane began to change that, because instead of staying here for a 5-day workweek and then a weekend of personal relations with the families of their colleagues, it became possible for each Member of the Senate to leave on Friday to return to their home State for whatever request was made of them. The Senator knew that and the requesting organization knew that. So it became a matter of political necessity to respond. The effect of that was not only did the work of the Senate extend from 6 to 7 months to today's 7th of December--we have been in session now for 11 months and 1 week--it also meant that those weekends of personal relationships were largely lost. My No. 1 suggestion in this post-jet airplane age is that we try to get back to the tradition of spending more time together as families, as Americans, rather than as Republicans and Democrats. For instance, rather than holding our traditional partisan retreats in the spring of the year, huddling as reds and blues, we should go to a retreat as a whole Senate celebrating the families of this great institution. I point to the pending intelligence reform bill, which I hope we will pass in the next day, as an example of what can be done when we recognize that an issue is so important to our Nation that we must work together to understand the problem and then develop solutions which are driven by pragmatism, not ideology. I suggest we apply the lessons that are being learned in developing and forming and passing intelligence reform to some of the challenges that are before us now such as reform of Social Security and Medicare, and reform of our energy policy that we as a nation would be well served. Franklin Roosevelt declared in 1940: I do not believe that the common denominator of our great men in public life has not been mere allegiance to one political party, but the disinterested devotion with which they have strived to serve the whole country--and the relative unimportance that they have ascribed to politics compared with the paramount importance of government. The Congress should also spend less time looking at the rearview mirror for the accidents behind and more time looking out of the front windshield. Since I have served there for a decade including 18 months as chairman, I would cite the Intelligence Committee as a prime example of this institutional failure to focus ahead. Prior to September 11, the committee spent an inordinate amount of time examining a series of mistakes, of acts of treachery and of bureaucratic turf fighting. What we failed adequately to do was to look forward to the threats and challenges that our intelligence agencies needed to address before those threats and challenges resolved into a tragedy. We desperately need to apply this principle of looking out the front windshield to our accumulative deficits, budgetary deficits, trade deficits, transportation and public utilities deficits, education deficits among them. These deficits are challenges which this generation, unlike our forefathers, is ignoring because they are tough and managing them now has political downsides. But it is wrong, it is immoral to let our grandchildren do the heavy lifting because we have refused to do so. We need to learn again the principle of federalism that our forefathers laid out for us. I come out of a Jeffersonian philosophy believing that the best governmental decisions are most likely to be made by those closest to the citizens who will be affected by those decisions. I recognize the importance of a national response to truly national issues and to the protection of the civil rights of all citizens. But America's great contribution to political thought has been federalism, the sharing of responsibility between a central government and our 50 individual States. I am concerned that this appreciation for federalism has too frequently been situational. We at the Federal level, the national level, determine what outcome we wish to secure and then support either centralization or a distribution of power based on what has a better chance of achieving the goal we seek. We would be well advised to resist this temptation. Daily we are learning from the headlines of Ukraine and Iraq and other countries such as America with a diverse population which are struggling to secure peace and prosperity. These foreign countries remind us of how difficult it is to hold to the model of federalism unless we are prepared to treat it with respect even when it may result in a different outcome than we would personally prefer. Finally, we should support the institution of the Senate. Its procedures and prerogatives are not arbitrary but reflect a responsibility to balance a complex government which is designed to protect the freedoms of the people against the temptation of government becoming authoritarian. I would like to give special recognition to Senator Robert Byrd. Frankly, when I entered this institution, Senator Byrd and I had some disagreements over how we thought the National Government should address its priorities. But over the years, I have come to gain increasing respect and admiration for his defense of the institution of the Senate precisely because it plays such a crucial role in protecting our individual freedoms. Mine has been a wonderful life, an exciting and unpredictable journey. But it is a journey that is not ending but, rather, taking a different course. I am planning to travel especially in Latin America to teach, to write at least one more book, to continue my years of interest in relations within the Western hemisphere and in modernizing America's intelligence capability, and finally to fulfill our responsibilities to future generational leaders through the creation of an institution that instills the values of public service of such great Floridians such as LeRoy Collins, Reubin Askew, and our former colleague Lawton Chiles. These are things that excite me, that inspire me and to which I am convinced I can make a better contribution as a private citizen at this, the end of the beginning of my life. Four years after he left the Presidency, President Harry Truman said: I have seen a great many men in public life, and one of their besetting sins is to stay in office too long. I decided that I would not be guilty of this common failing, and that I should make way for younger men. I extend my congratulations to the man Floridians have chosen as my successor, soon to be Senator Mel Martinez. I wish him the very best in his new role. Mel is a friend. He is a good man who has served Florida and America in many different positions of responsibility. I know the Senate will welcome him to his new home in the Senate. We Floridians have high expectations for Senator Mel Martinez and for those who will be serving in the 109th Congress and beyond. Goodbye, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I say to the Senator, of all the exports that come in to Haiti, the vast majority come from the United States of America, including most of their food. Therefore, if the purchasing power of the Haitian people is even minimally increased, it will make a good neighbor and a good consumer of U.S. goods even more capable of doing so. So I agree with the Senator's economic assessment that the modest amount of aid that we are giving, not in the form of aid but rather aid through trade, will redound to our economic benefit as well as to our sense of national comity with our neighbors in the hemisphere.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Absolutely. In fact, in addition to all the systemic problems I cited, in the last few months Haiti has been hit with two dramatic climate-based tragedies. Earlier in the year on the east side of the country there were massive floods that resulted in the deaths of over 1,000. Then during this hurricane season on the western part of Haiti, there were similar floods that cost in excess of 1,000 lives. I would refer my colleagues to a program that appeared just last night on the ``NewsHour'' about the circumstances in Gonaives, the third largest city in Haiti, which was the epicenter of that hurricane that hit just a few weeks ago. And yet today the circumstances are, if anything, worse than they were the day after the hurricane passed. So I say to the Senator, yes, anything that we could do that would help and would show our willingness to help would be very well received in Haiti.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I yield.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I first thank my friend from Minnesota for his very kind remarks and for the tenacity with which he oversees, supports, and advocates for the education of the children of his State. I admire his priorities. I wish I could say the same thing about another action taken today in the House of Representatives. We have a neighbor with which we have had long historic and cultural ties. The case could be made that there would not be a United States of America today but for the aid of this neighbor. And that neighbor is the country of Haiti. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, one of the poorest countries in the world. It is a country with a gigantic illiteracy problem, a gigantic health problem, a gigantic unemployment problem. We have demonstrated the fact that actions in Haiti have an effect on our national interests by having invaded Haiti repeatedly during the 20th and now into the 21st century. Our typical invasion has been to deal with whatever was defined as the immediate problem, stay there for a brief period of time, and then leave. Soon all the problems that caused our previous involvement recurred. We invaded Haiti yet again earlier this year. I am concerned we may well have to repeat that if we do not take action to deal with two fundamental problems. One is security, the second is jobs. In terms of security, we left Haiti in June of this year with the understanding that the United Nations would provide significant security forces. Approximately 6,000 were committed from a variety of nations in the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere. As of the middle of last month, less than half of those 6,000 commitments had been fulfilled. That contributes substantially to violence, to threatening the stability and continuation of the government. It has encouraged the same kind of forces that used to man the Tonton Macoutes and the military services of the Duvaliers to seek a hope that they might resurrect themselves. Second is that the economy of Haiti has continued, as unbelievable as it is, to slide further into wretched poverty. There was legislation introduced by my good friend, Senator DeWine of Ohio--I was pleased to cosponsor it--which would have given to Haiti some of the benefits which this Congress has recently provided to the poorest nations of Sub-Saharan Africa, to allow Haiti to have some hope of building an economy that allows some 75,000 to 100,000 Haitians to get a job, generating a sufficient income to support their families. That legislation passed this Chamber unanimously. It had the total support of the Senate. That legislation went to the House of Representatives. Senator DeWine and I and others testified before the Ways and Means Committee as to the urgency of action, both the humanitarian aspects of this legislation, but, also, frankly, the self- interests of the United States of America in avoiding another collapse of that neighboring country. I have been joined now by Senator DeWine. Senator DeWine has given an enormous amount of compassionate, aggressive leadership to this issue, and we had every expectation that we were on a track to get this legislation adopted in the House of Representatives until our first disappointment occurred when the leadership of the Ways and Means Committee decided to abandon the legislation that had already passed unanimously in the Senate and adopt a competing but much diluted bill for their effort to provide some assistance to Haiti. I cannot speak for Senator DeWine, but I speak for myself, that I was disappointed the extent of the legislation that the Senate had passed looked as if it was unlikely to be enacted, but at least there would be something that the U.S. Congress would have done for the people of Haiti and again for our own self-interest. Unfortunately, we have heard in the last 36 hours that it looks as if even that thin response will not be brought before the House of Representatives during this session of Congress. I am extremely disappointed at what that says about our real values in terms of feeling a kindredship with our neighbors within this hemisphere. I am also disappointed at what that says about the Chambers of the U.S. Congress. My hope burns eternal, and now that it appears as if there is a reasonable expectation that we will return the week of December 6 to take final action possibly on the omnibus monstrosity that stands before the Senate, and hopefully also on the subject of my previous remarks, intelligence reform, I hope we would also place on the agenda at that last hour an opportunity for Members of Congress to show they were not cold-hearted and without concern for fellow human beings, and that this effort, as minimal as it is, would be a symbol of our concern and, hopefully, a platform from which more effective and extensive U.S. action could be taken.

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

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, we are now in a serious quandary and a quagmire in some part due to the fact this institution, and our counterpart across the Hall, has difficulty in effective collaboration. With that said, I want to talk about what I think is really one of the outstanding examples of what can happen when our Chamber and our friends in the House of Representatives decide there is an issue important enough to collaborate on to do something important for the people of America. We have had, over the last 15 years, a series of the most serious failures of American intelligence in our Nation's history. It didn't just start with September 11, 2001, and it didn't end with the circumstances that led to the war in Iraq. Going back over the decade of the 1990s we had the World Trade Center attack in New York, we had attacks against our embassies in Africa, we had failure to detect that India and Pakistan had become nuclear powers, we had the loss of the USS Cole in Yemen--all of those, which should have been detected, preempted, and the tragedy avoided by the effective professional work of our intelligence agencies. We didn't get what we thought we deserved. I wish to particularly commend this evening Senators Collins and Lieberman as well as Senators Roberts and Rockefeller for the outstanding leadership they have given in trying to overcome this vulnerability, this unnecessary vulnerability. When I look at a final piece of legislation, I approach it in this manner. First, what were the problems--or maybe, what were the missed opportunities that led us to believe it was important that we develop this legislation? And now, at the end of the process, how well does the final product solve or at least substantially mitigate the problem that had led to our concern in the first place? As it relates to the status of our intelligence agencies, we have had a number of problems that have each contributed, in their own way, to this series of failures. We have had the problem of the difficulty in the intelligence agencies adapting to changing adversaries and the changing global threat environment. The Cold War was the most fundamental historic event in the history of the American intelligence. Our intelligence agency had been focused for the better part of 45 years on the Soviet Union. We knew their languages. We knew their cultures. They were an entity very similar to the United States of America. We could almost anticipate what their actions would be. Today, we have a massively asymmetrical adversary. Groups such as al- Qaida and Hezbollah and Hamas and Islamic Jihad, nations which are not nation states or tribes of tribes driven by extreme religious beliefs. We have not adapted to that change, and we have paid a high price for that failure to adapt. I am pleased to say there are provisions in the Intelligence Reform Act--and I hope we will soon take it up--which will begin to alter that situation. We are establishing a strong Director of National Intelligence, or DNI, who will be able to provide overall leadership and direction. He or she will not be responsible for the management of a line agency, as is the case today, where the Director of Central Intelligence is also the Director of the CIA. But, rather, he will be able to focus on those issues that will affect the entire community of intelligence and will have the responsibility to assure that we are sensitive and responsive to new developments. I believe one of the areas in which we will face the greatest challenge in this responsiveness will be in our domestic intelligence. The FBI has been one of the agencies finding it most difficult to respond to a new environment. There has been a pattern of continuing to follow the culture of law enforcement when we need a new culture of intelligence to best protect our domestic vulnerabilities. I am pleased at some of the progress Director Mueller has made. I believe we should continue to explore other alternatives to see if they will better protect our domestic security. I am pleased that under this legislation, the FBI, while not a unit of the Department of National Intelligence, will be still under the direct control of the FBI but will be considered part of the intelligence community family. I hope at an early date there will be an analysis of what should be our mission statement for domestic intelligence and then what changes in the FBI or further organizational changes will be required in order to fulfill that mission. A second major problem has been the failure of the intelligence community to provide the big picture, strategic intelligence. Our former colleague, Pat Moynihan, used to regularly complain that, while we knew a great deal about the telephone system inside the Kremlin, nobody had observed the fact that the Soviet Union was near collapse. We have had similar failures to see the big picture, in terms of the failure to recognize the presence of terrorist cells within the United States, cells which were supported by terrorist entities or those supported by foreign governments. In the runup to the war in Iraq was another massive failure to give appropriate strategic intelligence. It is hoped the strong Director of National Intelligence will now have an opportunity to focus on these strategic issues. It is also hoped, as this legislation gives a heightened priority to source information-- that is information that is available through public documents, newspapers, and other means--that it will receive a new importance in terms of arriving at overall intelligence conclusions. There also has been a serious failure in human intelligence. We have many people in the intelligence agencies who understand the culture and the language of Russia. We are grossly inadequate in terms of people who understand the culture and language of the Middle East and central Asia. This legislation supplements legislation that we have already passed in the Defense authorization bill which would establish a framework for what I would refer to as a ROTC, Reserve Officers Training Corps, except in this case not for the military but, rather, for intelligence purposes. We have a sound foundation upon which to base the reform of our intelligence agencies. The problem we face tonight is that sound foundation which probably would pass this body by a vote of almost that which passed a few weeks ago, which was 96 to 2, and by a substantial majority in the House of Representatives, is being held up by a few Members of the House who wish to see the status quo retained or have other goals which are unrelated to the reform of the intelligence community that they have been unable to secure incorporation in this final conference report. It would be a very sad conclusion of this session of Congress if one of the most pressing issues facing our Nation and the security of Americans; that is, provision of an intelligence capability that will allow us to understand our new adversaries will allow us to preempt the activities of those adversaries and will put us in a position to do what President Bush stated was our goal when he said our goal in the war on terror does not end with al-Qaida; it only starts there. It extends to all terrorist groups which have global reach. We will find them. We will stop them. We will destroy them. We cannot carry out the Bush doctrine in the war on terror unless we have substantial enhancements in our intelligence community. This is not something that just came upon us a few months ago. There is literally a stack higher than my desk of reports that have been written just since the end of the Cold War pointing out consistently the limitations in making recommendations to enhance our intelligence capability. These were totally ignored until 9/11. Even after 9/11 we were extremely slow to appreciate the urgency of reform of our intelligence agencies. We had to go almost to the third anniversary after 9/11 before serious consideration was being given. For us today to announce we again have failed to take action to protect the American people would be a tragic condemnation of this session of Congress, and an unnecessary condemnation. We have an excellent proposal which has been endorsed by the 9/11 Commission, by leadership, and by the families of the tragedy of 9/11. For us to walk away from this opportunity that we now have to demonstrate that through bipartisan and bicameral actions this Congress is able to identify a serious national problem, deal with that problem, and enact it into law would be itself yet another tragedy. I hope when we reach the week of December 6 and the House returns that the House will resolve its internal disputes and the President will continue his involvement. I personally urge the President to particularly direct attention to the Pentagon where I think much of the energy for recalcitrance has emanated and that we will, before this year is over, pass an intelligence reform bill which will serve the interests of the American people and will bring honor to the Congress.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I understand we are in a period of morning business?

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

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, it is vital that we pause to remember Veterans Day, which was observed by this Nation last week. While our brave troops are protecting our freedom around the world, it is especially important that we honor those who have served before them. We owe our 25 million living veterans our heartfelt appreciation for answering the call to duty and serving this Nation in the United States Armed Forces. And, this Nation must never forget the ultimate sacrifice paid by so many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Today, as it should be, military service is being held in high regard. The ongoing events in Afghanistan and Iraq have renewed America's sense of gratitude toward the men and women of the Armed Forces for the great sacrifices they make everyday on behalf of our Nation. I personally want to thank all of our veterans and members of the Armed Forces for their selfless service to this country. As we observe Veterans Day, let us remember that we owe our veterans our honor and respect year around. It would be truly shameful if veterans felt forgotten except for this one day per year. There must be no wavering in our commitment toward those who served in the United States Armed Forces. I am proud to represent the State of Florida. Florida has one of the highest veteran populations in the country. I am fortunate to represent not only the almost 2 million veterans of Florida, but veterans all over this Nation. It has been my sincere pleasure and honor to serve as ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for these past 2 years, and it is my hope that my term on the Committee has benefited those men and women who have sacrificed and served on behalf of this grateful Nation. Throughout my tenure on this committee, I have fought very hard for improvements in benefits and services to veterans. I constantly think of Abraham Lincoln's pledge, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphans.'' It is especially fitting that in the shadow of Veterans Day comes the passage of important veterans health and benefits legislation by both Chambers of Congress. We must continue to advance benefits and health care for our Nation's bravest individuals and their families. This recently passed legislation will improve and expand a host of veterans benefits, including: survivors benefits for spouses with dependent children; housing benefits; and educational benefits for Guard and Reserve members, veterans, and spouses of veterans killed on active duty. I am proud of this legislation and hope that future Congresses continue to provide veterans with a wide array of necessary benefits and services and strive to meet their evolving needs. Our veterans deserve no less. On Veterans Day, and everyday, we should honor those who have worn the uniforms of our Nation. They are the best of the best.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5365, a bill that will ensure the continuation of YMCA pension plan that has provided participants retirement security for more than 80 years. The Senate passed a bill, S. 2589, that Senator Bunning and I worked to move earlier this year. The House of Representatives has now sent over a bill introduced by Representatives English and Pomeroy that closely follows the intent of the Senate bill. I am pleased that this effort has been a bipartisan one in both bodies of Congress. I hope this legislation will be enacted promptly. I also thank Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for their assistance in bringing this bill to the floor today. The YMCA pension plan is an excellent example of how retirement security can be provided through employer-sponsored plans. This is a bill about protecting the retirement security for thousands of YMCA employees and retirees. There are 27 YMCA's in Florida, over 977,843 members and over 4,400 plan participants and retirees. The retirement security provided by the YMCA pension plan is critical to these people and their families, as well as over 80,000 plan participants across the country. This country could learn much from the retirement security provided by the YMCA pension plan. As I have stated, the YMCA pension plan is a very significant part of each YMCA employee's compensation package, most of who are modestly paid. The YMCA pension plan exemplifies how our Nation should think about providing solid, substantial retirement security. I also want to extend my thanks to the Treasury Department and IRS, for their patience while the Congress worked through finding a solution to ensure the YMCA pension plan could continue to offer the benefits to its participants and retirees. In closing, I encourage all of my colleagues in the Senate to support this bill, and I am pleased that we are moving forward with this legislation today and look forward to its enactment soon.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2004. For the past year, both bodies of Congress and the Administration have been in a numbers debate--disagreeing over the appropriate level of Federal expenditures for surface transportation, highways and public transit, for the next six years. What this dispute misses are the real issues: 1. What is the state of our surface transportation systems and other public infrastructure? 2. What will the expenditure levels in the bills under consideration do to affect that state? 3. What do the American people want in terms of maintenance, access, congestion, and serviceability of our highways, bridges, public transit, schools, water and sewer systems, and other infrastructure sectors? Now, we have passed an 8 month surface transportation extension because the White House and both bodies of Congress could not even agree on a $318 billion funding level--$57 billion lower than what was recommended by the United States Department of Transportation to maintain our surface transportation. These inadequate levels of funding that were being discussed proves that surface transportation and infrastructure is not a priority of this Congress. This is the precise reason we must establish an infrastructure commission to assess the problems of our nation's infrastructure and recommend solutions. This Congress must understand that a component of America's economic competitiveness lies within our infrastructure. The reality is that our Nation is in the midst of an infrastructure crisis. In almost every one of these areas, America is losing ground at an alarming pace and inadequate funding on the part of the federal government is the leading cause. The infrastructure deficit interferes with our personal lives on a daily basis. Increased congestion means longer commutes to and from work. Unrepaired potholes means greater wear and tear on our vehicles. Deteriorating water lines means greater exposure to lead in our drinking water. Crumbling schools means our children do not receive the quality education they deserve. We cannot expect our children to be productive if their schools' basic amenities do not meet the fundamental standards needed for effective learning. A 2003 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers, who I am happy to say support this piece of legislation, in addition to the Associated General Contractors of America and the American Public Works Association, had schools rated as a D- and estimated that 75% of school buildings are inadequate to meet the needs of school children. An even greater threat is over the horizon. This infrastructure deficit will erode our economic productivity advantage, the principle hope for Americans to maintain our standard of living in the face of fierce global competition. U.S. productivity, and the high standard of living that results, is dependent upon efficient transportation systems and healthy workers. We are not efficient if our goods are shipped on trucks that are stuck in congested traffic. We are not efficient if our harbors are unable to accommodate the newest generation of freighters. And our workers cannot be productive if our sewer and water lines are in such disrepair that it affects their health. In 1984, Congress established the National Council on Public Works Improvement to report on the state of the Nation's infrastructure. They found that investment in America's infrastructure was barely keeping up with yearly depreciation and that the system would not be able to adequately respond to increased demand. Their 1988 final report warned that without increased investment, America would be faced with an ``infrastructure crisis.'' Sixteen years later and after the major economic boom of the 1990's, we have failed to maintain, let alone improve, America's infrastructure. The consequences of our inaction are apparent. In the 1988 report, the national infrastructure grade was a ``C.'' The ASCE 2003 Report Card for America's Infrastructure demoted the overall grade to a ``D+.'' It is evident that there has been a deterioration in several aspects of our infrastructure since the 1988 report. In 1988, roads received a grade of a C+. In 2003, roads were downgraded to a D+. In 1988, water resources and water supply was given a B and B- respectively. In 2003, drinking water received a D and navigable waterways received a D+. This deterioration has a ripple effect throughout the entire economy. Public dollars invested in infrastructure increases the productivity of private investment, which keeps the U.S. competitive in the global economy. What should we do? In the short run, any infrastructure bill passed prior to the development of a long-term plan should be for 3 years or less in duration. This is the only way to keep the political heat on the White House and the Congress. Our recent experience with 6-year authorization bills, such as the highway bill, demonstrates the Jekyll and Hyde approach we have taken toward infrastructure. There is a moderate peak of attention when the legislation is up for reauthorization, then, more than a half a decade of disinterest. Also in the short run, Congress must restrain itself from using the surface transportation act and other infrastructure legislation as a field of turkeys with the gobblers to be brought home to voters. The ability of Congress to restrain itself would be enormously enhanced if the relevant federal agencies would immediately get to the task of developing nation-wide standards of need, so that the Congress would have a standard against which to allocate resources. Like the United States Department of Transportation, other agencies need to assess their needs and report back to the Congress and the White House one year prior to the expiration of the current laws. In the long run, we must come to grips with this burgeoning infrastructure deficit. One model could be the National Highway Act of the 1950s, when under the leadership of President Eisenhower, the states and the federal government came together to jointly finance and construct an interstate highway system, a system which has transformed our nation. President Eisenhower recognized that the highway system would benefit the entire nation, and called on Congress to support his vision. In his words, ``. . . the uniting forces of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we bear--United States.'' Today, his words still resonate. Improving infrastructure should be a cause around which we can all unite. If we act, the entire country benefits; if we fail to act, the entire country suffers. This new infrastructure initiative could use many of Eisenhower's same principles and apply them to rebuild America and protect and advance our nation's social and economic future. The establishment of this national commission on infrastructure to report to the President and the Congress in 2\1/2\ years would be a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation to ensure that the nation's infrastructure will one day meet current and future demands and more importantly, facilitate economic growth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2004. For the past year, both bodies of Congress and the Administration have been in a numbers debate--disagreeing over the appropriate level of Federal expenditures for surface transportation, highways and public transit, for the next six years. What this dispute misses are the real issues: 1. What is the state of our surface transportation systems and other public infrastructure? 2. What will the expenditure levels in the bills under consideration do to affect that state? 3. What do the American people want in terms of maintenance, access, congestion, and serviceability of our highways, bridges, public transit, schools, water and sewer systems, and other infrastructure sectors? Now, we have passed an 8 month surface transportation extension because the White House and both bodies of Congress could not even agree on a $318 billion funding level--$57 billion lower than what was recommended by the United States Department of Transportation to maintain our surface transportation. These inadequate levels of funding that were being discussed proves that surface transportation and infrastructure is not a priority of this Congress. This is the precise reason we must establish an infrastructure commission to assess the problems of our nation's infrastructure and recommend solutions. This Congress must understand that a component of America's economic competitiveness lies within our infrastructure. The reality is that our Nation is in the midst of an infrastructure crisis. In almost every one of these areas, America is losing ground at an alarming pace and inadequate funding on the part of the federal government is the leading cause. The infrastructure deficit interferes with our personal lives on a daily basis. Increased congestion means longer commutes to and from work. Unrepaired potholes means greater wear and tear on our vehicles. Deteriorating water lines means greater exposure to lead in our drinking water. Crumbling schools means our children do not receive the quality education they deserve. We cannot expect our children to be productive if their schools' basic amenities do not meet the fundamental standards needed for effective learning. A 2003 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers, who I am happy to say support this piece of legislation, in addition to the Associated General Contractors of America and the American Public Works Association, had schools rated as a D- and estimated that 75% of school buildings are inadequate to meet the needs of school children. An even greater threat is over the horizon. This infrastructure deficit will erode our economic productivity advantage, the principle hope for Americans to maintain our standard of living in the face of fierce global competition. U.S. productivity, and the high standard of living that results, is dependent upon efficient transportation systems and healthy workers. We are not efficient if our goods are shipped on trucks that are stuck in congested traffic. We are not efficient if our harbors are unable to accommodate the newest generation of freighters. And our workers cannot be productive if our sewer and water lines are in such disrepair that it affects their health. In 1984, Congress established the National Council on Public Works Improvement to report on the state of the Nation's infrastructure. They found that investment in America's infrastructure was barely keeping up with yearly depreciation and that the system would not be able to adequately respond to increased demand. Their 1988 final report warned that without increased investment, America would be faced with an ``infrastructure crisis.'' Sixteen years later and after the major economic boom of the 1990's, we have failed to maintain, let alone improve, America's infrastructure. The consequences of our inaction are apparent. In the 1988 report, the national infrastructure grade was a ``C.'' The ASCE 2003 Report Card for America's Infrastructure demoted the overall grade to a ``D+.'' It is evident that there has been a deterioration in several aspects of our infrastructure since the 1988 report. In 1988, roads received a grade of a C+. In 2003, roads were downgraded to a D+. In 1988, water resources and water supply was given a B and B- respectively. In 2003, drinking water received a D and navigable waterways received a D+. This deterioration has a ripple effect throughout the entire economy. Public dollars invested in infrastructure increases the productivity of private investment, which keeps the U.S. competitive in the global economy. What should we do? In the short run, any infrastructure bill passed prior to the development of a long-term plan should be for 3 years or less in duration. This is the only way to keep the political heat on the White House and the Congress. Our recent experience with 6-year authorization bills, such as the highway bill, demonstrates the Jekyll and Hyde approach we have taken toward infrastructure. There is a moderate peak of attention when the legislation is up for reauthorization, then, more than a half a decade of disinterest. Also in the short run, Congress must restrain itself from using the surface transportation act and other infrastructure legislation as a field of turkeys with the gobblers to be brought home to voters. The ability of Congress to restrain itself would be enormously enhanced if the relevant federal agencies would immediately get to the task of developing nation-wide standards of need, so that the Congress would have a standard against which to allocate resources. Like the United States Department of Transportation, other agencies need to assess their needs and report back to the Congress and the White House one year prior to the expiration of the current laws. In the long run, we must come to grips with this burgeoning infrastructure deficit. One model could be the National Highway Act of the 1950s, when under the leadership of President Eisenhower, the states and the federal government came together to jointly finance and construct an interstate highway system, a system which has transformed our nation. President Eisenhower recognized that the highway system would benefit the entire nation, and called on Congress to support his vision. In his words, ``. . . the uniting forces of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we bear--United States.'' Today, his words still resonate. Improving infrastructure should be a cause around which we can all unite. If we act, the entire country benefits; if we fail to act, the entire country suffers. This new infrastructure initiative could use many of Eisenhower's same principles and apply them to rebuild America and protect and advance our nation's social and economic future. The establishment of this national commission on infrastructure to report to the President and the Congress in 2\1/2\ years would be a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation to ensure that the nation's infrastructure will one day meet current and future demands and more importantly, facilitate economic growth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I want to express my admiration for the very strong and effective case the Senator from Louisiana made about what are our priorities, and that is the same issue I want to raise. I am going to talk about when these National Guard come home, will they have a job? The statistics are that we are losing on average 5,000 jobs per day to foreign countries. That is the extent of outsourcing which is occurring in this country, and if there is one issue I believe the country is united on, it is that while there are things we cannot directly affect--we cannot directly affect that other countries are going to have lower wage rates and lower working conditions, we cannot affect the fact that some countries are going to have lower environmental standards--those you could describe as the consequences of the marketplace--but, Mr. President, we sure do not need to socialize the outsourcing of jobs by giving additional incentives for American companies to take American jobs to China or to any other foreign country, and that is exactly what this bill does. It socializes outsourcing by increasing substantially the tax incentives to move jobs out of America. This proposal contains $42 billion over 10 years for a dozen or more provisions, all of which are aimed at moving jobs out of the United States. The actual cost is substantially more than that. Mr. President, just one provision of this matter which represents one-third of that total, $42 billion, do you know does not go into effect until the year 2009? You can imagine what the real 10-year cost of this proposal is going to be. This $42 billion in international tax changes to encourage outsourcing is greater than the net tax cuts we are providing to domestic manufacturers, and yet the whole purpose of this enterprise was to increase the competitiveness of American manufacturers. Let me give you one example of what we are doing. We are going to provide that U.S. multinationals which have taken jobs in the past outside the United States and have earned a profit and now want to bring that profit back to the United States, that they are going to have a tax rate on those repatriated funds not at the 35 percent that their American counterparts pay when they give the work in the United States. Can you believe it, Mr. President, that we are going to tax those repatriated funds from foreign jobs, outsourced from America, at 5\1/4\ percent? That is an absolute outrage. And let me just tell you a group that is not exactly averse to outsourcing because it has publicly supported it is the President's Council of Economic Advisers. In a letter, which, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, dated October 4 from the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. John W. Snow, here is what the Council of Economic Advisers says: . . . analysis indicates that this repatriation provision would not produce any substantial economic benefit.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge my colleagues to continue to support our veterans and their families by passing the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004. This bill, which I shall call the Compromise Agreement, is the final version of a veterans omnibus bill. The Compromise Agreement will improve and expand a host of veterans benefits, including: survivors benefits for spouses with dependent children; housing benefits; and educational benefits for Guard and Reserve members, veterans, and spouses of veterans killed on active duty. It is very appropriate that at a time when our airmen, soldiers, sailors and marines are in harm's way, that we remember the sacrifices that those before them have made on behalf of this great Nation by improving and expanding veterans benefits for our Nation's bravest and their families. I will briefly highlight some of the more important provisions, and then ask that my colleagues direct their attention to the Joint Explanatory Statement for further explanation of the proposed legislation. Dependency and indemnity compensation is a monthly benefit paid to eligible survivors of servicemembers who died on active duty, and of certain veterans. A larger monthly benefit is paid to surviving spouses with children under the age of 18. Under this legislation, dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors, with dependent children, of spouses killed on active duty would be increased by $250 a month, for 2 years, beginning on the date when entitlement to benefits begins. A VA contracted study found that spouses with children had a higher level of unmet need than spouses without children. This provision is included to further aid the transition of surviving spouses with dependent children. We must make every effort to make certain that the families of servicemembers who paid the ultimate sacrifice have their needs met. Owning a home of one's own is the American Dream. This legislation would make that dream a reality for more of our veterans by increasing the maximum amount of the VA home loan guaranty. The current VA loan limit of $240,000 restricts beneficiaries from using the guaranty because it is insufficient to cover median housing prices in many parts of the Nation. Section 403 of the Compromise Agreement would increase the maximum VA loan amount to $333,700. It would also index the loan limit to 25 percent of the conforming loan limit for a single-family residence as set by Freddie Mac. This would allow the loan limit to continue to rise with the cost of housing inflation automatically. This change, coupled with the reinstatement of the VA adjustable rate mortgage loan program and improvement of the hybrid adjustable rate mortgage loan program will allow many more veterans to be able to purchase a home. The second half of the American Dream is a college education. Educational assistance is provided to the surviving spouse of a servicemember or veteran who died of a service-connected injury, or the spouse of a veteran who is rated by VA to be totally and permanently disabled. The spouse has 10 years to use the entitlement. However, many surviving spouses, during this difficult transitional period, are busy raising children and working making it impossible to use the education benefit. This legislation would give an additional 10 years to the surviving spouse of a servicemember who died of a service-connected disability to use the benefit. Under current law, a member of the Selected Reserve or National Guard must contribute a non-refundable $1,200 in order to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill education program. However, a member of the Selected Reserve must spend 1 year on active duty before being eligible for the program. Section 109 of the committee bill would create flexibility and allow the Montgomery GI Bill participation fee to be collected not later than 1 year after the completion of 2 years of active duty, ensuring that the Reserve or Guard has become eligible by satisfying the service requirement. With the costs of attending college rising, it is important that we do as much for our veterans as possible so that they may reach their academic objectives. This legislation would allow VA to reimburse eligible beneficiaries for the cost of certain national admission tests, such as the Law School Admission Test, Graduate Record Exam, Graduate Management Admission Test, and Scholastic Aptitude Test, and for course credit at institutions of higher learning, such as the Advanced Placement Exam and College-Level Examination Program. In keeping with this committee's continuing effort to aid veterans in attaining appropriate education and employment opportunities, this legislation improves the full-time apprenticeship and on-job training programs under the MGIB. Section 103 of the Compromise Agreement, for more than a 2-year period, would increase the full-time VA monthly educational assistance allowance payable to individuals participating in these training programs. For the first 6 months of training, the monthly benefit would increase to 85 percent from 75 percent; for the second 6 months, 65 percent from 55 percent; and the remainder of months, 45 percent from 35 percent. Additionally, Section 104 of the Compromise Agreement authorizes VA to pay educational benefits to veterans participating in competency-based apprenticeships, in addition to time-based apprenticeships, bringing the VA program in line with the way most apprenticeship programs are structured today. These provisions show our veterans America's continuing unwavering support of the service and sacrifice that they have made on behalf of this country. Particularly at a time when we are at war, we must ensure our servicemembers that we will fulfill the commitment promised by Abraham Lincoln, ``to care for him that shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' In conclusion, I would like to specifically thank Senator Specter and his benefits staff for their work on this comprehensive bill, specifically Bill Tuerk, Jon Towers and Chris McNamee, and my staff, Buddy Menn, Mary Schoelen, Dahlia Melendrez, Ted Pusey, Amanda Krohn, and Tandy Barrett, who recently left the committee, for all of their hard work in helping to put this legislation together. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation on behalf of America's veterans and their families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following this statement.