Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Labor-Management Partnership Act of 2007 to restore the labor- management partnerships and council that were established by President Clinton in 1993. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Representative Danny Davis, D-IL, who is introducing companion legislation in the House, and Senator Hillary Clinton, who is cosponsoring this bill. On October 1, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12871 establishing a National Partnership Council of Federal agency representatives and labor organizations to advise the President on matters involving labor-management relations. The Executive Order was in response to long-standing labor-management conflicts and the need for greater cooperation between labor and management in Government. In the early 1990s the Government Accountability Office and others identified labor-management partnerships as contributing to increased productivity, better customer service, and higher employee satisfaction. The Office of Personnel Management, OPM, concurred with those findings in 2001. In a the letter to President Clinton accompanying the report, then-OPM Director Janice Lachance said, ``The evidence shows a real shift toward labor-management cooperation and away from the adversarial approach so common in the past. I see a strong, consistent desire on both sides of the table to continue on the path toward collaborative labor-management relations and no interest in returning to the old ways of doing business.'' Despite the success of the program, President Bush revoked the Clinton Executive Order on February 17, 2001, less than one month after taking office. Since that time, labor-management relations have deteriorated throughout the Federal Government. The new personnel systems at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, which have reduced collective bargaining rights for those employees, have lowered employee morale and heightened the adversarial nature of labor- management relations in the federal government. It has become clear that participation in the decision making process through labor- management partnerships often leads to greater employee understanding and acceptance and a smoother transition to the new policy or program. As the Clinton Executive Order said, ``Only by changing the nature of federal labor-management relations so that managers, employees, and employees' elected union representatives serve as partners will it be possible to design and implement comprehensive changes necessary to reform government.'' I urge my colleagues to join with me in encouraging labor-management partnership and a cooperative solution to resolving Federal workplace issues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce comprehensive legislation to improve the capacity of the Department of Veterans Affairs to care for veterans with invisible wounds. For too many veterans, returning home from battle will not bring an end to conflict. They will return home, but the war will follow them in their hearts and minds. Just as we support our troops as they fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must support them when they return from war marked by their service. Invisible wounds are complicated and wide- ranging, and our solutions must rise to the challenge. What do we know about the scope of the problem? A March 2007 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine reported that more than one-third of war veterans who have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan are suffering from various mental ailments, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, substance use disorder and other problems. According to the study, a disproportionate number of young soldiers suffer mental health problems. There is no question that action is needed. One in five Iraq War veterans are likely to develop PTSD, as studies have estimated, and this is but one aspect of the mental health challenges faced by veterans. We also know that veterans suffering from physical and mental wounds use drugs and alcohol to assuage their pain. Experts believe that stress is the number one cause of drug abuse, and of relapse to drug abuse. Mr. President, 60 to 80 percent of Vietnam veterans who have sought PTSD treatment have alcohol use disorders. VA has been dealing with substance abuse issues for decades, but much remains to be done. On April 25, 2007, I chaired a Committee on Veterans' Affairs hearing on veterans' mental health concerns and on VA's response. We heard heart-wrenching testimony from the witnesses. Randall Omvig spoke of his son's suicide upon returning from Iraq. Tony Bailey spoke of his son's struggle with substance abuse, and of his death. Patrick Campbell shared his own experience with PTSD and the experiences of his close friends. Witnesses urged us to learn, and they urged us to act. The provisions of this bill are a direct outgrowth of that hearing and the testimony given by those who have suffered with mental health issues, and by their family members. This bill addresses the immediate needs of veterans by ensuring high quality mental health services at VA facilities and in their communities. The bill also looks to the future. Our legislation has eleven core provisions. I will highlight some of them: First, VA medical centers would be required to offer a minimum range of services for veterans in need of help to overcome their substance use disorders. It would require programs to prevent relapse and to provide medical treatments to reduce cravings for alcohol and drugs, among others. Many VA facilities have some of these programs but there is no universal minimum. We know that there are large numbers of veterans suffering with a terrible confluence of substance use disorders and other mental health disorders. The bill would require that both issues be treated by a well-qualified team of health professionals who would treat the disorders concurrently. To ensure that innovative mental health services are tailored to individual communities, the legislation would create grants to enhance programs and fill holes. VA facilities would compete for grants for various purposes, from increasing weekend and evening hours to creating programs which encourage urgent care physicians, who are often gateways for new patients, to quickly refer those whom they believe may have a mental health disorder. Veterans with debilitating mental health issues, including substance use disorder and PTSD, may need inpatient care. VA has moved rapidly to reduce their inpatient mental health capacity, but there is no doubt that inpatient stays are necessary for many veterans. This legislation would require the VA Secretary to designate six inpatient facilities to provide recovery services for veterans with comorbid PTSD and substance use disorders. The legislation would also require a comprehensive review of VA's residential mental health facilities. This provision stems directly from the hearing testimony of Tony Bailey, whose son suffered from PTSD and substance abuse. Tony's son, Justin, died while in a VA domiciliary. He overdosed on medications provided to him by VA. Residential facilities are a necessary part of VA's effort to treat mental health problems and they must be up to par. It has been made clear to me, by mental health experts and veterans experiencing mental health problems, that families need to be much more involved in the care of their loved ones. Families are suffering in much the same way that veterans themselves are suffering. They must have access to care which will aid in the effective treatment and rehabilitation of a veteran. An existing provision of law allows such care for family members. Our legislation simply restates this law and clarifies the type of services to which family members should have access. Finally, our goal is to define the best possible treatments for veterans now and in the future. To that end, this legislation sets up a mental health research program based on the successful pediatric oncology model. We are proposing a network of sites with adequate patient flow and clinical and research expertise. The goal is to promote rapid progress from research to therapeutic advancement and effective treatments for PTSD and PTSD in the presence of a substance use disorder. An aggressive mental health agenda for veterans begins by providing VA with financial support. Our comprehensive legislation authorizes the creation of new programs and expansion of existing ones. While these changes amount to significant new funding, every dollar was included in our Committee's Views and Estimates Letter to the Budget Committee. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs requested a $700 million dollar increase in fiscal year 2008 for mental health programs, and the full Senate supported this level in the final budget resolution. A similar level of funding was supported by the full Senate in the VA appropriation bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support this innovative and comprehensive legislation, which will bring hope and progress to many veterans suffering from invisible wounds.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Brown, introduce legislation that would enhance VA's pain management program. It is estimated that nearly 30 percent of Americans, that is some 86 million people, suffer from chronic or acute pain every year. A recent study conducted by VA researchers in Connecticut found that nearly 50 percent of veteran patients that are seen at VA facilities reported that they experience pain regularly. While pain increases in severity with age, it is also a growing problem among younger veterans who have been injured in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these veterans are coming home with severe injuries, often traumatic brain injuries, that require intensive rehabilitation. In some cases, these younger veterans will have to live with the long-term effects of their injuries, of which pain is a large and debilitating part. Pain management is an area of health care that by many accounts is not yet up to par, in both the private and public sectors. The bill we are introducing would enhance VA's pain management program on a national, system-wide level, by requiring VA to establish a pain care initiative at every VA health care facility. Every hospital and clinic would be required to employ a professionally recognized pain assessment tool or process, and ensure that every patient who is determined to be in chronic or acute pain is treated appropriately. The profile of a veteran in pain is often times different than that of his or her counterpart in the private sector. For example, veterans suffering from chronic pain are more likely to be receiving treatment for other problems including depression, substance abuse, alcoholism, or post traumatic stress disorder. Understanding and treating their pain must be a priority, and this bill will help VA enhance the department's existing pain management program. VA's current pain management efforts are worthwhile, but are unfortunately not adequate to meet the all of the needs of veterans. Pain management in VA continues to be relatively decentralized and unstandardized. Some VA medical centers have adopted successful approaches and procedures to deal with pain, while others have been less active. Fortunately, VA has begun the work of identifying professional talent and developing ideas that provide the groundwork of an effective pain management program. This bill would build upon that foundation and help ensure that these ideas become practice. This bill provides us with an opportunity to help the thousands of veterans who are living in pain each and every day. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Brown, introduce legislation that would enhance VA's pain management program. It is estimated that nearly 30 percent of Americans, that is some 86 million people, suffer from chronic or acute pain every year. A recent study conducted by VA researchers in Connecticut found that nearly 50 percent of veteran patients that are seen at VA facilities reported that they experience pain regularly. While pain increases in severity with age, it is also a growing problem among younger veterans who have been injured in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these veterans are coming home with severe injuries, often traumatic brain injuries, that require intensive rehabilitation. In some cases, these younger veterans will have to live with the long-term effects of their injuries, of which pain is a large and debilitating part. Pain management is an area of health care that by many accounts is not yet up to par, in both the private and public sectors. The bill we are introducing would enhance VA's pain management program on a national, system-wide level, by requiring VA to establish a pain care initiative at every VA health care facility. Every hospital and clinic would be required to employ a professionally recognized pain assessment tool or process, and ensure that every patient who is determined to be in chronic or acute pain is treated appropriately. The profile of a veteran in pain is often times different than that of his or her counterpart in the private sector. For example, veterans suffering from chronic pain are more likely to be receiving treatment for other problems including depression, substance abuse, alcoholism, or post traumatic stress disorder. Understanding and treating their pain must be a priority, and this bill will help VA enhance the department's existing pain management program. VA's current pain management efforts are worthwhile, but are unfortunately not adequate to meet the all of the needs of veterans. Pain management in VA continues to be relatively decentralized and unstandardized. Some VA medical centers have adopted successful approaches and procedures to deal with pain, while others have been less active. Fortunately, VA has begun the work of identifying professional talent and developing ideas that provide the groundwork of an effective pain management program. This bill would build upon that foundation and help ensure that these ideas become practice. This bill provides us with an opportunity to help the thousands of veterans who are living in pain each and every day. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce comprehensive legislation to improve the capacity of the Department of Veterans Affairs to care for veterans with invisible wounds. For too many veterans, returning home from battle will not bring an end to conflict. They will return home, but the war will follow them in their hearts and minds. Just as we support our troops as they fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must support them when they return from war marked by their service. Invisible wounds are complicated and wide- ranging, and our solutions must rise to the challenge. What do we know about the scope of the problem? A March 2007 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine reported that more than one-third of war veterans who have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan are suffering from various mental ailments, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, substance use disorder and other problems. According to the study, a disproportionate number of young soldiers suffer mental health problems. There is no question that action is needed. One in five Iraq War veterans are likely to develop PTSD, as studies have estimated, and this is but one aspect of the mental health challenges faced by veterans. We also know that veterans suffering from physical and mental wounds use drugs and alcohol to assuage their pain. Experts believe that stress is the number one cause of drug abuse, and of relapse to drug abuse. Mr. President, 60 to 80 percent of Vietnam veterans who have sought PTSD treatment have alcohol use disorders. VA has been dealing with substance abuse issues for decades, but much remains to be done. On April 25, 2007, I chaired a Committee on Veterans' Affairs hearing on veterans' mental health concerns and on VA's response. We heard heart-wrenching testimony from the witnesses. Randall Omvig spoke of his son's suicide upon returning from Iraq. Tony Bailey spoke of his son's struggle with substance abuse, and of his death. Patrick Campbell shared his own experience with PTSD and the experiences of his close friends. Witnesses urged us to learn, and they urged us to act. The provisions of this bill are a direct outgrowth of that hearing and the testimony given by those who have suffered with mental health issues, and by their family members. This bill addresses the immediate needs of veterans by ensuring high quality mental health services at VA facilities and in their communities. The bill also looks to the future. Our legislation has eleven core provisions. I will highlight some of them: First, VA medical centers would be required to offer a minimum range of services for veterans in need of help to overcome their substance use disorders. It would require programs to prevent relapse and to provide medical treatments to reduce cravings for alcohol and drugs, among others. Many VA facilities have some of these programs but there is no universal minimum. We know that there are large numbers of veterans suffering with a terrible confluence of substance use disorders and other mental health disorders. The bill would require that both issues be treated by a well-qualified team of health professionals who would treat the disorders concurrently. To ensure that innovative mental health services are tailored to individual communities, the legislation would create grants to enhance programs and fill holes. VA facilities would compete for grants for various purposes, from increasing weekend and evening hours to creating programs which encourage urgent care physicians, who are often gateways for new patients, to quickly refer those whom they believe may have a mental health disorder. Veterans with debilitating mental health issues, including substance use disorder and PTSD, may need inpatient care. VA has moved rapidly to reduce their inpatient mental health capacity, but there is no doubt that inpatient stays are necessary for many veterans. This legislation would require the VA Secretary to designate six inpatient facilities to provide recovery services for veterans with comorbid PTSD and substance use disorders. The legislation would also require a comprehensive review of VA's residential mental health facilities. This provision stems directly from the hearing testimony of Tony Bailey, whose son suffered from PTSD and substance abuse. Tony's son, Justin, died while in a VA domiciliary. He overdosed on medications provided to him by VA. Residential facilities are a necessary part of VA's effort to treat mental health problems and they must be up to par. It has been made clear to me, by mental health experts and veterans experiencing mental health problems, that families need to be much more involved in the care of their loved ones. Families are suffering in much the same way that veterans themselves are suffering. They must have access to care which will aid in the effective treatment and rehabilitation of a veteran. An existing provision of law allows such care for family members. Our legislation simply restates this law and clarifies the type of services to which family members should have access. Finally, our goal is to define the best possible treatments for veterans now and in the future. To that end, this legislation sets up a mental health research program based on the successful pediatric oncology model. We are proposing a network of sites with adequate patient flow and clinical and research expertise. The goal is to promote rapid progress from research to therapeutic advancement and effective treatments for PTSD and PTSD in the presence of a substance use disorder. An aggressive mental health agenda for veterans begins by providing VA with financial support. Our comprehensive legislation authorizes the creation of new programs and expansion of existing ones. While these changes amount to significant new funding, every dollar was included in our Committee's Views and Estimates Letter to the Budget Committee. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs requested a $700 million dollar increase in fiscal year 2008 for mental health programs, and the full Senate supported this level in the final budget resolution. A similar level of funding was supported by the full Senate in the VA appropriation bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support this innovative and comprehensive legislation, which will bring hope and progress to many veterans suffering from invisible wounds.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague in the House, Congressman Danny Davis, to introduce the Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act to improve the management of the Senior Executive Service, SES, and enhance its diversity. For years we have known that the Federal SES does not reflect the diversity of our Nation. The Government Accountability Office released reports in 2003 and 2007 showing that the percentages of minorities in the SES are inconsistent from agency to agency and not reflective of the diversity of the potential pool of applicants. While we have seen some gains in the area of women in senior positions, the 28 percent of women in the SES is far less than the national average. And for minorities in senior level career positions, the gap is worse. Twenty-one percent of the potential applicants are racial and ethnic minorities while only 16 percent of the entire SES are minorities. As agencies think about the next generation of SES, it is important to be reminded of the need to recruit a talented and diverse pool of candidates in order to bring fresh perspectives into our Government's leadership roles. In serving the diverse population of America, we need diverse leaders to improve the way the Federal workforce serves our country. It is well known that the Federal Government is facing an impending retirement wave. Ninety percent of senior level employees will be eligible for retirement in the next 10 years. Federal agencies need to prepare for the next generation of leaders and in the process actively recruit diverse talent. I believe that mentoring is an excellent way to do that. This bill requires the establishment of an SES mentorship program. Qualified senior executives would be paired up with other talented women, racial and ethnic minorities, and disabled persons to mentor them in the hopes of cultivating a diverse pool of applicants for SES positions. The Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act also establishes an office of senior executive resources to improve overall efficiency and diversity by bringing together all the SES policy development and implementation functions at the Office of Personnel Management. The bill also establishes evaluation panels made up of women and minorities to review incoming applications for SES positions and pass along recommendations of the qualified candidates to the Executive Review Board. The standards are high for entry into the SES, and I believe that this bill continues that tradition and will improve the overall diversity in our highly talented executive workforce. America is a nation of many different races and backgrounds. Every year, the diverse heritage of America continues to grow, and our communities benefit from the addition of those cultures. New cultures bring new ideas, and in our civil service--America's workforce--we need leadership that reflects those varied cultures and backgrounds. I believe this bill lays the framework for bringing these new ideas and different populations into Federal leadership. I hope to see improvements in the representation of women, racial and ethnic minorities, and the disabled in the SES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague in the House, Congressman Danny Davis, to introduce the Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act to improve the management of the Senior Executive Service, SES, and enhance its diversity. For years we have known that the Federal SES does not reflect the diversity of our Nation. The Government Accountability Office released reports in 2003 and 2007 showing that the percentages of minorities in the SES are inconsistent from agency to agency and not reflective of the diversity of the potential pool of applicants. While we have seen some gains in the area of women in senior positions, the 28 percent of women in the SES is far less than the national average. And for minorities in senior level career positions, the gap is worse. Twenty-one percent of the potential applicants are racial and ethnic minorities while only 16 percent of the entire SES are minorities. As agencies think about the next generation of SES, it is important to be reminded of the need to recruit a talented and diverse pool of candidates in order to bring fresh perspectives into our Government's leadership roles. In serving the diverse population of America, we need diverse leaders to improve the way the Federal workforce serves our country. It is well known that the Federal Government is facing an impending retirement wave. Ninety percent of senior level employees will be eligible for retirement in the next 10 years. Federal agencies need to prepare for the next generation of leaders and in the process actively recruit diverse talent. I believe that mentoring is an excellent way to do that. This bill requires the establishment of an SES mentorship program. Qualified senior executives would be paired up with other talented women, racial and ethnic minorities, and disabled persons to mentor them in the hopes of cultivating a diverse pool of applicants for SES positions. The Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act also establishes an office of senior executive resources to improve overall efficiency and diversity by bringing together all the SES policy development and implementation functions at the Office of Personnel Management. The bill also establishes evaluation panels made up of women and minorities to review incoming applications for SES positions and pass along recommendations of the qualified candidates to the Executive Review Board. The standards are high for entry into the SES, and I believe that this bill continues that tradition and will improve the overall diversity in our highly talented executive workforce. America is a nation of many different races and backgrounds. Every year, the diverse heritage of America continues to grow, and our communities benefit from the addition of those cultures. New cultures bring new ideas, and in our civil service--America's workforce--we need leadership that reflects those varied cultures and backgrounds. I believe this bill lays the framework for bringing these new ideas and different populations into Federal leadership. I hope to see improvements in the representation of women, racial and ethnic minorities, and the disabled in the SES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, I was pleased to support the fiscal year 2008 Defense Appropriations Act. I would like to thank the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, my good friend and colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens for their leadership in managing this bill with such impartiality and expediency. Not only does this bill fully support the facility, training and equipment requirements of our men and women in uniform, but it also provides a much needed increase in funds for military health over the President's budget request to ensure that members of our Armed Forces receive the care that they deserve. As chairman of the Veteran's Affairs Committee, I strongly supported the additional inclusion of $73 million to fund the programs authorized in the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warrior Act which addresses shortfalls in the care provided to our injured or ill soldiers. I also applaud the inclusion in this bill of a provision which recognizes the dedication and sacrifices made by both the members of our Armed Forces and their civilian counterparts by providing a 3.5 percent increase in basic pay for all servicemembers and civilian personnel, a 0.5 percent increase above the President's request. I was also pleased to support the addition of $1 billion to properly equip the National Guard and Reserve forces who risk their lives to defend our nation. As this bill moves toward conference I will continue to work with my colleagues in both the Senate and the House to ensure that our military members and their families have the resources they need and the support they have earned.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I was pleased today to vote, along with my Senate colleagues, for the passage of H.R.1585, the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2008. I thank the managers of this bill, Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, for working so diligently and in such a collegial manner toward passage of a bill that addressed so many complicated and potentially divisive issues. It is to their credit that we have been able to move this bill along which is so vital to the support of our brave men and women in our armed services. This bill was passed out of committee with a number of provisions to improve the lives of our military members and the effectiveness and readiness of our armed services which I, as a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, worked to ensure were a part of the bill language. They include important acquisition reforms such as a series of provisions that would help the DOD manage its oversight of contract services and the creation of a Chief Management Officer for the Department of Defense. I also was able to work with my colleagues to incorporate language that establishes a Director of Corrosion and Control Policy and Oversight in addition to other provisions that further my efforts to establish effective corrosion control in all branches of our services. H.R. 1585 also contained my legislation to establish a National Language Council to develop and implement a long-term and comprehensive language strategy. In addition to the provisions that I initiated and supported in the underlying language, I was able to successfully introduce and cosponsor a number of amendments during the Senate's consideration of the Defense Authorization Act. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I was particularly pleased to see that language from the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warrior Act which addresses shortfalls in the quality of health care provided to our servicemembers was included as an amendment to this bill. Similarly, I was pleased that my amendment related to the Wounded Warrior Act was passed by the Senate. This legislation will enhance the quality of care that members of our Armed Forces receive once they transition to veteran status, improve the capability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to care for veterans with traumatic brain injuries, and improve access to VA mental health and dental care. In addition, my amendment addresses the issue of homelessness among newly discharged servicemembers and recognizes the importance of the National Guard and Reserve in the VA's outreach programs. This bill also includes an amendment I offered to end the disparate treatment of employees who accepted discontinuation of service retirement following a reduction in force. My amendment ensures that these Federal employees would be able to return to work at DOD and continue to earn toward retirement. It is vital that this Nation have a viable plan to produce individuals who are capable of effective communication in today's global environment. I also applaud the inclusion of the fair competition amendment, introduced by Senator Kennedy which I cosponsored, which will minimize the harmful effects of the current A-76 process for outsourcing Federal jobs to private contractors by removing several unfair advantages that contractors currently have in the contract competition process. I was disappointed, however, that the Webb amendment which I was proud to cosponsor was not agreed to by the Senate. The Webb amendment would have lessened the burden placed on our soldiers and their families by setting a minimum time between deployments in order to ensure that members of our Armed Forces have as much time at home with their loved ones as they fight overseas for this Nation. I was also disappointed that the Levin-Reed amendment which would have set a clear and definitive deadline for the withdrawal of forces from Iraq was not passed. One of the key elements of stabilizing the ongoing chaos in Iraq is for the Iraqi Government to begin to take more responsibility for ensuring their own nation's security and assume primary combat role in protecting and defending their nation. This will not occur without the development and implementation of a coherent exit strategy. The Levin-Reed amendment offered just such a plan. As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services and chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management, I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to change the course of this war by insisting that the administration provide to this Congress and the people of our nation with a comprehensive exit strategy. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1327

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I want to take this time to thank my good friends and managers of this bill, and leaders of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin and Senator Warner, for moving forward and moving quickly with the nomination of Admiral Roughead. I mention this because I knew Admiral Roughead personally as he served in the Pacific Command. I can recall how he was a great leader in the role of taking relief to the tsunami victims in the southeast Asia area of the Pacific while he was Deputy Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command. He was recently the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. I had the great fortune to work with Admiral Roughead during his tenure as deputy commander, U.S. Pacific Command, and commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet and was consistently impressed by his skills as commanding officer, dedication to duty and commitment to protecting and defending our Nation. Since his graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1973, Admiral Roughead has served this country with absolute distinction in a variety of positions including most recently commander, U.S. Fleet Forces. In particular, I want to note the leadership and compassion Admiral Roughead, as deputy commander, U.S. Pacific Command, displayed during the United States Navy's participation in the international response to the destruction following the December 2004 tsunami in South and Southeast Asia. Similarly Admiral Roughead has demonstrated his deep understanding of the importance of honoring cultural diversity. In his capacity as representative of our U.S. naval forces, he has truly embodied the true spirit of aloha in his interactions with the many diverse communities in my home state of Hawaii. I look forward to continuing to work with Admiral Roughead in his new capacity and I am pleased to support his confirmation as chief of Naval Operations.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the fair competition amendment proposed by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, to H.R. 1585, the Defense Department authorization bill. This amendment would minimize the harmful effects that the current A- 76 process for outsourcing federal functions to private contractors has on Federal workers. It will do this by leveling the playing field between Federal workers and private contractors by removing several unfair advantages that contractors currently have in the process. I want to highlight just two of the important improvements that the amendment would make to the A-76 process. First, this amendment would take away the competitive advantage that contractors currently have if they deny their employees health and retirement benefits. I have fought to improve and protect federal workers' benefits as the chairman of the Federal Workforce Subcommittee. At a time when more and more Americans have no health insurance, it is simply wrong to give private contractors an advantage in winning work done by DOD employees by denying their workers the health benefits that Congress has guaranteed to Federal employees. Also, this amendment would give employees the same right to protest unfair contract awards under the A-76 process that private contractors already have. The current situation makes no sense. Private contractors were given the right to protest contracting decisions in the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, a law that was written for competitions between private contractors. The same protest right was never extended to Federal workers who compete against private contractors under the A-76 process. Basic fairness dictates that if one party can protest the results of a contest, both sides should be able to. I believe this amendment introduces a more appropriate level of caution into the process for outsourcing Federal jobs. Caution is especially important for jobs related to national defense and security. The recent events involving Blackwater as a contract security provider in Iraq remind us how difficult it can be to hold outside contractors accountable. The Federal Government over time has been a model for fair and equal employment practices, and in turn Federal workers have shown strong loyalty, courage, and dedication to serving their country. When we award jobs that are currently done by Federal workers to private contractors, we limit our ability to demand a high level of accountability and fairness from the private companies that win the contracts, nor can we expect the same level of dedication from their employees. When used properly on a limited basis, the A-76 process can improve Government efficiency by injecting competition into certain Federal functions that mirror activities performed by the private sector. However, the results of A-76 competitions suggest that there is limited economic value to the process. Federal employees do their jobs more efficiently than private contractors in most cases. Federal employees win 80 percent of the competitions under the A-76 process despite advantages given to private contractors. These positive results do not justify keeping the advantages granted to the private sector. Leveling the playing field will do more than make A-76 competitions objectively fairer. It can undo the harm to Federal employee morale that is caused by forcing them to compete for their jobs within a system that is rigged against them. At a time when the Federal Government faces tremendous challenges in hiring and retaining talented workers, it is important that we act to address the harmful effects that the current A-76 process has on the Federal workforce. That is what the fair competition amendment would do, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. The Children's Health Insurance Program is a successful program that has improved the quality of life for our Nation's children. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Children's Health Insurance Program has reduced the number of uninsured children by one- third since its enactment in 1997. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act will preserve the access of health care for the 6.6 million children currently enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program. It will also expand health care access to an estimated 4 million children. An estimated 5 percent of children in Hawaii do not have health insurance. This is approximately 16,000 children. My home State of Hawaii has continued to develop innovative programs to increase access to health insurance. The Hawaii State Legislature established the Keiki Care Program this year. The Keiki Care Program is a public-private partnership intended to make sure that every child in Hawaii has access to health care. It would be irresponsible to reduce Federal resources to States for children's health care. Without access to insurance, children will not be able to learn, be active, and grow into healthy adults. I greatly appreciate the inclusion of a provision to restore Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, DSH, allotments for Hawaii and Tennessee. Medicaid DSH payments are designed to provide additional support to hospitals that treat large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients. I developed this provision as an amendment with my colleagues, Senators Alexander, Inouye, and Corker. I am proud that we were able to have this bipartisan amendment included in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. Hawaii would be provided with a $10 million Medicaid DSH allotment for fiscal year 2008. For fiscal year 2009 and beyond, Hawaii's allotment would increase with annual inflation updates just like other low DSH States. We must enact this legislation so that Hawaii and Tennessee can receive Medicaid DSH allotments in fiscal year 2008 and beyond. In The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, DSH allotments were provided for Hawaii and Tennessee for 2007. The act included $10 million for a Hawaii Medicaid DSH allotment. The Hawaii State Legislature enacted legislation to provide the necessary matching funds required to utilize the Federal resources. Hawaii and Tennessee are the only two States that do not have DSH allotments. I will explain some of the history behind the lack of the DSH allotment for Hawaii and why it is so important that this legislation be enacted. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, BBA, created specific DSH allotments for each State based on their actual DSH expenditures for fiscal year 1995. In 1994, Hawaii implemented the QUEST demonstration program that was designed to reduce the number of uninsured and improve access to health care. The prior Medicaid DSH program was incorporated into QUEST. As a result of the demonstration program, Hawaii did not have DSH expenditures in 1995 and was not provided a DSH allotment. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 made further changes to the DSH program, which included the establishment of a floor for DSH allotments. However, States without allotments were again left out. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 made additional changes in the DSH program. This included an increase in DSH allotments for low DSH States. Again, States without allotments were left out. Hawaii and Tennessee should be treated like other extremely low DSH States and be provided with Medicaid DSH allotments every year. Other States that have obtained waivers similar to Hawaii's have retained their DSH allotments. Hospitals in Hawaii are struggling to meet the elevated demands placed on them by the increasing number of uninsured people. DSH payments will help Hawaii hospitals meet the rising health care needs of our communities and reinforce our health care safety net. All States need to have access to resources to ensure that hospitals can continue to provide services for uninsured and low-income residents. The President's expected veto of this legislation is detrimental to the health of our Nation's children. It also will be very harmful to Hawaii. The resources necessary to ensure that children have access to health care. This administration fails to understand the health care needs of the country and especially Hawaii. This legislation will help the State of Hawaii provide essential health care access to children that currently lack health insurance. It will also provide much needed assistance to our hospitals that care for Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured patients.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, yesterday I offered, along with my colleague Senator Webb, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 that would require the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prepare a report on plans to replace the monument at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery. Our amendment seeks to clarify the plans of the Secretaries to replace the monument at the Tomb of the Unknown due to cosmetic cracks that have appeared over time in the facing of the monument. It would require the Secretaries to provide Congress with a description of the current efforts to maintain and preserve the monument and an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of repairing rather then replacing it. The Secretaries would also be required to report on their plans to replace the monument and, if replaced, how they intend to dispose of the current monument. Our amendment would prevent the Secretaries from taking action to replace the monument until 180 days after the receipt of the report. The Army contends that the cracks in the monument diminish the aesthetic value of the monument and that the cracks justify the monument's replacement. The Army's position is that the cracks in the monument cannot be fixed and that it will continue to deteriorate. The Army also contends that the surface of the monument has weathered to the point that, within the next 15 years, the details of the carving are expected to be eroded to the extent that the experience of visiting the tomb will be adversely effected. They justify its replacement by asserting that the Tomb of the Unknowns has significance beyond it historic origins and therefore should be maintained in as perfect of a state as possible. This position is not shared by many civic and preservation groups who believe the monument can and should be preserved and repaired. This view is also shared by the preservation architects who completed the last formal study of repairs to the Tomb of the Unknowns in 1990. Supporters of preserving the current monument view it as something that cannot be replicated. They do not believe the experience of visitors will be diminished by the weathering and deterioration that come over time. They believe it is a symbol that should be considered in the same vein as other imperfect symbols of our heritage such as the Liberty Bell and the Star Spangled Banner, the flag that inspired our national anthem. It is important to note that the Capitol Building and the White House are other well-known and well-loved American icons that have developed cracks and other flaws in their building materials, but no one is suggesting that they be torn down and replaced with replicas. It is also important that, as we consider replacing the monument at the Tomb of the Unknowns, we acknowledge that it is the stated position of our Government under Executive Order 13287, signed by President Bush on March 3, 2003, that the Federal Government will provide leadership in the preservation of America's heritage. Our amendment does not preclude the Secretaries from replacing the monument at the Tomb of the Unknowns in the future, but seeks to ensure that we move with great caution before making any decisions that would irrevocably affect this national treasure. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I am honored to chair, oversees the Department of Veterans Affairs, the second largest Cabinet level department in the United States. A person who works for Veterans Affairs is joined by roughly 245,000 fellow employees, each of whom plays a role in fulfilling our Nation's obligation to those who have served. In an organization of that magnitude, there is a real risk of overlooking the importance of the contributions made by individual VA employees. Today I want to recognize one such employee, who celebrated her 50th year of working for veterans this past Sunday. Louise Seikel, a certified registered nurse anesthetist in Brooklyn, NY, has spent the last half century serving those who have served our country. To put this into perspective, I note that Louise has done this under 10 U.S. Presidents, and had provided care to veterans for over three decades before the first Secretary of Veterans' Affairs was appointed to the President's Cabinet. When she began, she and her colleagues cared for wounded warriors who were born in the 19th century, and today she is part of the health administration caring for those wounded in the conflicts of the 21st century. Louise has served countless numbers of veterans, and I cannot put into words the immeasurable impact she has made. What I can do, however understated it may be, is give her my heartfelt thanks. Louise has earned it. In that spirit I say to Louise Seikel, on behalf of every life you have touched and the grateful Nation you continue to serve, mahalo nui loa. Thank you so very much for your public service.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this month is National Preparedness Month, and activities are underway that will help educate Americans on actions they can take to safeguard their family and their community. During this time, not only should we be inspired but we should also be mindful that this past August 29 marked the 2-year anniversary of the time in which Hurricane Katrina decimated parts of Louisiana and Mississippi. In addition, we are now in the midst of a record-setting hurricane season, with an unprecedented two hurricanes making landfall simultaneously from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans on the same day. It is also the sixth anniversary of the attack by al-Qaida on our country. These catastrophic events underscored the need for our country, and each and every one of its citizens, to be prepared for disaster, regardless of its form. Much has been done since these terrible events to do so, but so much more needs to be done. As time separates us from those terrible events, we must not become complacent. During this month, we should use this time to reflect on how far we have come and how much further we need to go and what should be done to protect ourselves as individuals and as a country. While we may have incident, training, and contingency plans in place to help ensure that certain situations may be appropriately addressed, it is important for us to remember that acts of terror may not always be prevented, and nature continues to show its fury in many ways. As several reports have indicated, the threats to our homeland have not gone away; they have simply changed form. The July 17, 2007, National Intelligence Estimate, NIE, entitled ``The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland,'' confirmed that, although many plots to attack the United States after 9/11 have been disrupted, al-Qaida ``is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland'' and that its ``plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties . . .'' Furthermore, and of greater concern, the NIE assessed that Hezbollah, which has, until now, only conducted anti-U.S. attacks outside the United States, ``may be more likely to consider attacking the Homeland over the next three years . . .'' In addition to these threats, it is important to note that there are significant number of vulnerabilities at home. Even as memories of the massive August 14, 2003, North American power outage fade, the tragic August 1, 2007, bridge collapse in Minneapolis has provided yet another reminder that the Federal Government can no longer ignore our aging infrastructure. In the words of author Stephen Flynn, ``we depend on complex infrastructure built by the hard labor, capital, and ingenuity of our forbears, but . . . it is aging--and not very gracefully.'' In this regard, we must be focused on training, resources, and contingency plans to ensure that our Nation is prepared. Another point of concern is the impact severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS, had on the health infrastructure in Ontario, Canada, that revealed a vulnerable system unable to cope with an epidemic that originated outside its borders. The World Health Organization, WHO, predicted that the deadly H5N1 avian influenza would likely be the source of the next global pandemic. In the United States, a new study published by researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington has confirmed the first incidence of human-to-human transmission of H5N1 avian influenza, a beginning step in its becoming a human pandemic. The impact of such a pandemic would be enormous. A February 2006 study by the Lowy Institute for International Policy at the Australian National University concluded that, in a worst-case scenario, a global influenza pandemic would result in 142.2 million deaths and a $4.4 trillion loss in GDP. Given these studies and cases, it is imperative that United States be prepared for such a pandemic. We should not wait for another disaster to hit the United States--we must prepare now. I commend the Department of Homeland Security for conducting its National Preparedness Month campaign and am pleased that more than 1,700 State- and local-level organizations will be participating in preparedness activities around the country. I urge all Americans to take responsibility for their own preparedness, for that of their families, their businesses, and their schools. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia under the Homeland Security Committee, I am committed to making sure that the Federal, State and local governments are properly organized for the next natural or manmade disaster and to holding these agencies responsible when they are not. The passage of time since Katrina and 9/11 has done nothing to lessen the threat to the United States either from outside or within. It is not a matter of if such an event will occur but when it will occur. We must take the necessary precautions to be better able to deal with the disasters or incidents that will occur.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I wish to echo the remarks of my good friend and ranking member, Senator Voinovich. Senator Coburn's amendment threatens to reduce the number of participants in the program by nearly 1,000 students and would increase the costs of the program by more than $5 million. Furthermore, it conflicts with the intent of the legislation. Because of the high number of private schools in the District, Congress allowed students who chose to stay close to home a greater range of options, similar to a State school program. However, it was never intended to supplement the private education to the same degree as public education. Once again, I urge my colleagues to vote against his amendment and in support of the underlying bill. At this time, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 1124 and the opportunity it provides for DC's college-bound students. The reauthorization of the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 would continue a successful and effective scholarship program. The DC tuition assistance grant program, or DCTAG, provides scholarships to cover the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition for eligible DC residents attending any public college or university in the country. DCTAG awards those recipients up to $10,000 annually and $50,000 total in tuition assistance. The original purpose of the bill was to address concern that college- bound students in the District were at a disadvantage because DC lacks a State university system. DCTAG expanded higher education opportunities by allowing students to attend public universities and colleges nationwide at in-State tuition rates. The original bill also allows students to attend a limited number of nonprofit private schools to receive scholarships of up to $2500 annually and $12,500 total. Students who attend any historically black college or university or any private school in the District, Maryland, or Virginia qualify for private school grants. The 2002 reauthorization clarified that the grants were only for U.S. citizens residing in DC. The success of the program is clear. Since the launch of DCTAG in 2000, participation among DC residents more than doubled from 1,900 recipients to 4,700 recipients. DCTAG has awarded 26,000 grants totaling over $141 million to 9,769 District students. I am pleased to say that a few of those grants went to students attending the University of Hawaii at Manoa in my home State. Not only are more students receiving grants; more are going to college. The college enrollment rate for DC public school students has doubled to 60 percent and 38 percent of students in the program are the first ones in their family to attend college. DCTAG affords many District residents a chance to go to college when they otherwise would not be able to afford it. In July, my Subcommittee on the District of Columbia held a hearing with the Mayor and his education leadership team on their reform proposal for the public school system. They offered a realistic picture of DC public schools and a realistic vision for accountability and reform. The Chancellor of Education, Michelle Rhee, and the Mayor are working very hard to improve the unacceptably low performance of DC students by recruiting talented teachers, reforming the administrative offices, and repairing crumbling schools. They deserve all the support that the Congress can provide in their efforts. As the cost of college tuition continues to rise at both public and private institutions, this scholarship program offers the District's students hope that if they perform well in high school they can have the same opportunity to access affordable, public, higher education as students in Virginia, in Maryland, and across the country. Students who know they have the opportunity to go to college are more likely to perform well in high school. The DCTAG program supports the Mayor's efforts to improve DC public schools by offering students the chance to go to college at a minimal cost to the Federal Government. The DCTAG bill was reported out of committee in February, and now is the time to finally get it passed. I understand my colleague and fellow committee member, Senator Coburn, has asked that two amendments to the legislation be considered. The first amendment would modify the eligibility standard for the scholarship recipients to exclude any student whose family earns an income of $1 million or more. Despite the high income threshold, I am concerned about starting down the road of making this a needs-based scholarship program. The program is designed to provide all DC residents access to a range of higher education institutions. I have agreed to accept this amendment despite my misgivings for the sake of the entire program's reauthorization. The second amendment, however, I am not prepared to accept. It would threaten the integrity and success of the program by increasing the grant amounts for private schools. Nearly 10 times the number of students in the program attend public schools versus private schools, and an increase in the grant amounts for private schools would reduce the overall available funding. Fewer students would be able to participate in the program, and lower income students trying to attend more affordable public schools, in particular, would be significantly burdened, in some cases, potentially, being forced to forego college altogether. For many students, the importance of this program in defraying out- of-State tuition costs means the difference between attending college or not. I cannot support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment as well. DCTAG has helped thousands of DC students who receive postsecondary education. Its credibility and its effectiveness is evident. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and oppose Senator Coburn's second amendment. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining Approaches to Corporate Fraud Prosecutions and the Attorney-Client Privilege Under the McNulty Memorandum'' on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at 10:30 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 226. Witness list Panel I: Karin Immergut, United States Attorney, District of Oregon, U.S. Department of Justice, Chair; and White Collar Subcommittee for the Attorney General's Advisory Committee, Portland, Oregon. Panel II: Dick Thornburgh, Of Counsel, K&L Gates, Washington, DC; Daniel Richman, Professor, Columbia Law School, New York, NY; Michael Seigel, Professor, University of Florida Levin College of Law, Gainesville, FL; and Andrew Weissmann, Partner, Jenner & Block, New York, NY.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing will focus on the National Football League Retirement System and the current compensation system for NFL retirees with claims of advanced injuries that became symptomatic after retiring from the NFL.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 18, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Breaking the Methamphetamine Supply Chain: Meeting Challenges at the Border.''

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Mr. Hancel Porterfield on his retirement from Federal service on September 30, 2007, as the Corrosion Prevention and Control Program Manager for the Marine Corps. Hank, as he is known, along with a handful of staff, has been instrumental in giving new direction and cohesion to the Marine Corps' efforts to combat corrosion. Since being hired as the first Program Manager for USMC CPAC, Mr. Porterfield has been instrumental in completely changing the direction of CPAC from a study program administered by the Naval Surface Warfare Command, NSWC, to a program serving the warfighter at the Marine Expeditionary Force, MEF, level. Not only has Mr. Porterfield created a full service program with a workforce of 95 people from Camp Lejeune to Okinawa in just 3\1/2\ years, Mr. Porterfield also established a research and development arm to examine new products, procedures, and methods for reducing corrosion. Recently, I had occasion to participate in a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a U.S. Marines Corps corrosion prevention and control complex in Kaneohe Bay, HI, and had the privilege of meeting Mr. Porterfield in person. I was impressed by his dedication to duty and his service and leadership in launching the USMC CPAC Program. I would like to express my deepest appreciation and warmest aloha to Mr. Porterfield. In government we all hope one person can make a difference. I think Mr. Porterfield is one person who has made a difference and leaves behind a legacy of success. Best wishes Hank for a long and enjoyable retirement.