[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Page S14393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          VETERANS LEGISLATION

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last Thursday, November 8, 2007, the 
assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin, propounded unanimous consent 
agreements on two bills reported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee--S. 
1233, the proposed ``Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Other Health 
Programs Improvement Act of 2007'' and S. 1315, the proposed ``Veterans 
Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007.''
  Both proposed agreements called for the bills to be considered ``at 
any time determined by the majority leader, following consultation with 
the Republican leader'' and also provided that the only amendments that 
would be in order would be ``first-degree amendments that are relevant 
to subject matter of the bill.'' In other words, the request was for 
the Senate to take up these two bills, ordered reported by the 
committee in late June and reported in August, at some future time with 
the only exclusion being that no nonrelevant amendments would be in 
order.
  It is hard to think of a more modest request for action on 
legislation. Unfortunately, my friend and colleague, the former 
chairman and ranking member of the committee, Senator Craig, objected 
to both unanimous consent agreements.
  In explaining his objection, Senator Craig expressed the view that 
some provisions in the two bills are ``controversial enough to merit 
considerable floor debate.'' Whether I agree with that characterization 
of the provisions, I would not seek to keep Senator Craig or any other 
Senator from debating the two bills. As I just noted, that was 
precisely what the unanimous consent called for--debate, at a mutually 
agreed upon time, with the only limitation being that any amendment had 
to be relevant. Judging by the concerns Senator Craig discussed in his 
explanation of his objection to the unanimous consent agreement, his 
amendments would, indeed, be relevant.
  I was patient while our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
dealt with the upheaval that followed the unanticipated change in the 
minority leadership on the committee. I recognized that they needed 
time to reorganize and for Senator Burr to move into his new role as 
the committee's ranking member. However, that change in the ranking 
member's position occurred over 2 months ago. It is time to bring these 
bills to the floor, time to engage in a full and open debate, time to 
vote on any amendments, and time to allow the Senate to have its say on 
the bills.
  In his objection, Senator Craig spoke of the committee's history of 
working in a bipartisan fashion to resolve differences at the committee 
level. He is certainly correct that our committee rarely brings 
measures to the floor for debate. However, I do not understand that 
history to mean that any and all differences of opinion on legislation 
are resolved before we seek Senate action. Rather, it is my 
understanding that the committee's bipartisan practice means that we 
seek to negotiate so as to reach agreed-upon positions on legislation 
after legislative hearings and before committee markups. When we are 
unable to reach agreement, there is an opportunity for amendments to be 
offered during markups. After a markup, our traditional practice has 
been to move forward from a committee markup without further debate on 
the floor.
  That approach is exactly what happened in 2005, when Senator Craig 
was chairman of the committee. He and I had negotiated on a variety of 
legislative initiatives up to the markup but could not reach agreement 
on a number of matters. At the markup, I offered amendments--five or 
six is my memory--on a number of the issues about which I had strong 
feelings. I did not, however, continue to pursue those matters on the 
floor. And I most assuredly did not do anything to block Senate 
consideration of the legislation that I had sought to amend. In fact, 
as ranking member, I worked with then-Chairman Craig to gain passage of 
the legislation by unanimous consent.
  While I would certainly appreciate similar cooperation with respect 
to S. 1233 and S. 1315, I realize that Senator Craig and others may 
wish to continue to pursue amendments during debate before the full 
Senate, and I am prepared to support that result. All that is needed 
for that to happen is for agreement to be reached to begin that debate, 
as set forth in the unanimous consent agreement put forward by Senator 
Durbin last week.
  I do not know why others on the other side of the aisle are blocking 
this debate. I urge them to reconsider and to agree to allow the debate 
to go forward. Our committee should finish our work. America's veterans 
deserve no less.

                          ____________________