S390 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 2009 

They benefit from the widespread 

availability of consumer credit, and 

their use of that credit has been important to our economy. In fact, for many 

Americans, consumer credit is more 

than a convenience. It is something 

that many people need to use to pay 

for their everyday needs. For them, it 

is a necessity. 

Of course, another word for credit is 

debt, and credit card debt has increased 

considerably in recent years. Overall, 

during the last decade, total credit 

card debt rose by about 70 percent, and 

this clearly has an effect on consumers. 

Some polls have reported that about 

70 percent of surveyed families said the 

quality of their lives is adversely affected by the extent of their debts, and 

young people are more worried about 

going deeply into debt than about a 

terrorist attack. 

Some have argued that much of this 

debt was caused by recklessness and an 

erosion of financial responsibility. 

That was one of the main arguments 

advanced in support of the recent 

changes in the bankruptcy laws. 

But while there was something to 

that argument, it was not the whole 

story and it put too much emphasis on 

borrowers alone. Instead of just focusing on borrowers, Congress should also 

do more to promote responsibility by 

those who provide the credit, and one 

place to start is with credit card companies. 

That is the reason I have been working to make some commonsense 

changes in the rules for credit card 

companies. 

I first introduced a bill to do that 

back in 2006, and reintroduced it again 

the following year. I am proud it won 

the support of an array of consumer 

groups as well as cosponsors from congressional districts across the country. 

Last year, the House passed H.R. 

5244, the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of 

Rights, a bill I introduced with Representative CAROLYN MALONEY, that includes many provisions based on my 

legislation. 

The bill I am introducing today with 

Senator SCHUMER is almost identical to 

the House-passed bill. It includes protection against arbitrary interest rate 

increases. It will prevent cardholders 

who pay on time from being unfairly 

penalized. It will bar excessive fees and 

will require more fairness in the way 

payments are handled. And it will prohibit the use of ‘‘universal default’’ 

clauses—provisions that allow card 

issuers to impose a new, higher interest rate on a credit card account if 

there has been any change for the 

worse in the cardholder’s credit score— 

even if the change is unrelated to the 

credit card account. 

The passage of this legislation is 

made more urgent by our Nation’s 

worsening financial crisis. I will work 

with Members of both parties to make 

these commonsense reforms and even 

the playing field for credit card consumers in Colorado and throughout the 

country. 

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. 

THUNE, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Ms. 

COLLINS): 

S. 238. A bill to provide $50 billion in 

new transportation infrastructure 

funding through bonding to empower 

States and local governments to complete significant infrastructure 

projects across all modes of transportation, including roads, bridges, rail 

and transit systems, ports, and inland 

waterways, and for other purposes; to 

the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, despite 

the record transportation funding that 

Congress provided in the 2005 Transportation Reauthorization bill— 

SAFETEA–LU—our Nation’s infrastructure is being stressed to the 

breaking point. Our ports and rail lines 

are at or near capacity. Our highways 

are clogged. 

Congress is working with PresidentElect Obama on an economic stimulus 

package that will probably include 

funding for ‘‘shovel-ready’’ transportation projects. But even that won’t 

come close to rehabilitating our Nation’s transportation infrastructure. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers has noted that over the next 5 

years $1.6 trillion in investment is 

needed from all levels of government to 

keep our Nation’s current transportation system up to date. To put that 

into perspective, our Nation’s infrastructure needs roughly i times as 

much funding as was included in 

SAFETEA–LU. 

The question is ‘‘Where do we find 

the transportation funding that our 

country needs to meet our transportation and our economic needs?’’ 

Senator THUNE’s and my answer is to 

invest in America. 

Everyone agrees that our country’s 

infrastructure needs are tremendous. 

Everyone agrees that our country 

needs to invest more in transportation. 

What Congress hasn’t been able to 

agree on is where to find the money. 

Gas taxes just don’t generate enough 

revenues to even begin to satisfy highway and transit needs. 

In this budget climate, pots of extra 

Federal money are not just sitting 

around waiting to be used, and States 

surely don’t have any extra money either. Most have budget deficits. All the 

conventional funding sources are coming up short, so Senator THUNE and I 

think it’s time to think outside the 

box—and outside the trust funds. The 

Federal Government is about the only 

entity in the country that does not 

borrow money for capital projects, but 

in this climate it should and it must. 

Senator THUNE and I have come up 

with a creative approach to provide $50 

billion of additional new funding for 

transportation projects our country 

desperately needs by issuing Build 

America Bonds. Our country’s needs 

are so great that we think funding 

should be made available that is in addition to SAFETEA–LU. 

Our legislation is not a substitute for 

fixing the transportation trust fund. 

We still must address that problem, 

and later this year we must start on a 

new Transportation bill. Our legislation is meant to provide extra money 

on top of regular transportation funding. 

This money could not be earmarked 

by Congress. This will not fund any 

Senator’s pet project. This money will 

be controlled by the States, and used 

for the projects they think are most 

critical. 

An annual amount of approximately 

$500 million from trade fees will be 

placed in an Infrastructure Finance Account and invested for the life of the 

bonds, which will generate more than 

enough to repay the entire $50 billion 

principal amount. 

That means the only cost to the Government is the ‘‘interest portion’’ on 

the bonds, which is in the form of tax 

credits. With this funding mechanism, 

as little as $2 billion a year could generate the $50 billion in funding for 

transportation infrastructure. I call 

that a very smart investment in our 

country’s infrastructure. 

This investment is badly needed. 

Citizens stuck in traffic choking on 

exhaust need relief. Truckers who need 

to detour miles out of their way to 

avoid weight-limited bridges need relief. As our economy struggles with 

millions of workers losing their jobs, 

stagnating wages, the loss of even basic 

health benefits for many, and a mortgage market that is spiraling downward, the American economy desperately needs a shot in the arm. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that each $1 billion of 

funding for transportation directly produces nearly 50,000 jobs. So under the 

Wyden/Thune proposal the $50 billion of 

new transportation funding will provide critical economic stimulus that 

will create up to 2.5 million family 

wage jobs. 

This is an economic stimulus idea 

that will generate more funding for the 

economy now. It will create jobs. It’s a 

chance for the Federal Government to 

hold up its end of the bargain with our 

States. 

By Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself 

and Mr. GREGG): 

S. 239. A bill to amend title 38, 

United States Code, to ensure that veterans in each of the 48 contiguous 

States are able to receive services in at 

least one full-service hospital of the 

Veterans Health Administration in the 

State or receive comparable services 

provided by contract in the State; to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. 

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise 

to announce that I am introducing the 

Veterans Health Equity Act of 2009. 

This legislation requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that 

every State has either a full-service 

veterans hospital or, in the alternative, 

that veterans in every State have access to instate hospital care and medical services comparable to the services 

provided in full-service hospitals. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S391 

New Hampshire is currently the only 

State that does not have a full-service 

veterans hospital or a military hospital 

that provides comparable care to veterans. This imposes a great burden on 

too many New Hampshire veterans who 

are forced to travel out of State for 

routine medical services. New Hampshire has over 130,000 veterans and this 

number is projected to grow over the 

next 10 years. It is unconscionable that 

New Hampshire veterans must board 

buses in order to be transported to 

Massachusetts to get necessary medical care. New Hampshire’s entire congressional delegation, Senate and 

House, Republican and Democratic, is 

united in our commitment to end this 

unfair treatment of veterans. I am 

pleased the senior Senator from New 

Hampshire, JUDD GREGG, has agreed to 

cosponsor this legislation with me. 

Our bill is companion legislation to 

that introduced last week in the House 

by Representative CAROL SHEA-PORTER

and cosponsored by Representative 

PAUL HODES. I wish to take this opportunity to salute Representative SHEAPORTER for the leadership she has 

shown on this issue. 

Our goal is to ensure that New Hampshire veterans can get the care they 

need and deserve instate. Our legislation provides the Veterans’ Administration with flexibility to achieve this 

end. If it is not feasible for the VA to 

construct a new full-service hospital in 

New Hampshire or to restore full services at the VA hospital in Manchester, 

this legislation simply requires the 

Veterans’ Administration to contract 

for comparable instate care. 

My father served in Europe during 

World War II, my husband is a Vietnam 

era vet from the Army, and my son-inlaw Ryan recently served in the Air 

Force. I am proud of my family’s service and the service of all the veterans 

of New Hampshire and across this 

country. Every freedom and right we 

enjoy today was paid for with the sacrifices of the men and women who have 

served in our Nation’s Armed Forces. 

Our veterans deserve first-rate medical care, regardless of where they live. 

There are full-service veterans hospitals in 47 States and veterans in 

Alaska and Hawaii are able to receive 

care at military hospitals. New Hampshire alone has neither. I am hopeful 

our colleagues will recognize this inequity and support our efforts to provide New Hampshire veterans with the 

same access to health care that veterans in every other State receive. 

I look forward to working with New 

Hampshire’s congressional delegation, 

with my Senate colleagues and with 

the new Obama administration to end 

this injustice. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 239 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans 

Health Equity Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FULL-SERVICE HOSPITAL OF THE VETERANS HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION IN CERTAIN 

STATES OR PROVISION OF COMPARABLE SERVICES THROUGH CONTRACT WITH OTHER HEALTH CARE 

PROVIDERS IN THE STATE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 17 of title 38, 

United States Code, is amended by inserting 

after section 1716 the following new section: 

‘‘§ 1716A. Access to full-service hospitals in 

certain States or comparable services 

through contract 

‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT.—With respect to each 

of the 48 contiguous States, the Secretary 

shall ensure that veterans in the State eligible for hospital care and medical services 

under section 1710 of this title have access— 

‘‘(1) to at least one full-service hospital of 

the Veterans Health Administration in the 

State; or 

‘‘(2) to hospital care and medical services 

comparable to the services provided in fullservice hospitals through contract with 

other health care providers in the State. 

‘‘(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

subsection (a) shall be construed to restrict 

the ability of the Secretary to provide enhanced care to an eligible veteran who resides in one State in a hospital of the Veterans Health Administration in another 

State.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of 

sections at the beginning of such chapter is 

amended by inserting after the item relating 

to section 1716 the following new item: 

‘‘1716A. Access to full-service hospitals in 

certain States or comparable 

services through contract.’’. 

(c) REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later 

than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs shall submit to Congress a report describing the extent to which the Secretary 

has complied with the requirement imposed 

by section 1716A of title 38, United States 

Code, as added by subsection (a), including 

the effect of such requirement on improving 

the quality and standards of care provided to 

veterans. 

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to 

discuss the Veteran’s Health Equity 

Act, a bill that has been introduced by 

my friend from the other side of the 

aisle, Senator JEANNE SHAHEEN. I am 

pleased to start the 111th Congress in a 

bipartisan fashion and to support legislation that addresses an issue that is 

extremely important to our Nation’s 

heroic military veterans, especially in 

my home State of New Hampshire. 

This important piece of legislation, 

which I hope will have the Senate’s full 

support, would require the Department 

of Veterans Affairs to guarantee that 

veterans in every State have access to 

instate hospital care. More specifically, the Veteran’s Health Equity Act 

would require the VA to either provide 

a full-service VA hospital in every 

State or contract with one or a number 

of full-service hospitals to provide veterans with a comparable level of care. 

At this time, New Hampshire, like 

Alaska and Hawaii, is without a fullservice VA hospital and veterans are 

being forced to travel to Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont in order to receive necessary medical treatment. Oftentimes, especially during the winter 

months, interstate travel can be extremely dangerous in New England, 

and our veterans should not be forced 

to travel long distances in order to receive the medical care they have 

earned and deserve. 

I will continue to press the VA until 

veterans have access to local, full-service medical care. Our Nation’s veterans, who have selflessly served our 

country, are owed high-quality medical 

care in exchange for their courageous 

service. The Veteran’s Health Equity 

Act will guarantee that they receive 

that care in a local health care facility. 

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself 

and Mr. ENSIGN): 

S. 242. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 to specify the purposes for which 

funds provided under part A of title I of 

that Act may be used; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I 

rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce legislation to ensure that Federal Title I education funds are targeted to help our Nation’s neediest students learn. 

Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the 

country, serving over 12.5 million children in low-income schools, including 

about 3 million California school children. 

Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be 

used for academic instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided clear 

guidelines for how these important dollars should be used. 

This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States 

are struggling to comply with the Title 

I accountability standards established 

under ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’. 

While State administrators of Title I 

are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been 

given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with 

the law. 

I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this 

process as clear as possible to States 

and school districts. 

This legislation would define Title I 

direct and indirect instructional services. 

It would set a standard for the 

amount of Title I funds that can be 

used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program. 

It would ensure that the majority, 90 

percent, of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that a school district may not 

use more than 10 percent of these funds 

for administrative or indirect instructional services. 

By setting a standard for the amount 

of funds that school districts can spend 

on administrative or indirect services, 

we ensure that the majority of Title I 

dollars are used by districts to help improve student academic achievement. 

Furthermore, by defining direct and 

indirect services, all States can apply 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE