Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 10 minutes to speak in morning business.

Mr. AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last week, my majority colleagues and I on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs submitted the required views and estimates on the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs. In summary, we are recommending a $2.9 billion increase over the administration's request for veterans medical care. We believe this is the total amount necessary to treat all eligible veterans from World War II until the present time and to maintain the quality of VA medical services through the upcoming fiscal year. This amount would also provide the VA with resources to absorb the thousands of service members presently on medical hold at Walter Reed and in other military facilities. There is no question we must ensure these brave men and women are provided the best care possible. Today's Washington Post leads with a story titled, ``It Is Just Not Walter Reed.'' The story focuses on the various Federal facilities across the system, including VA facilities. I urge my colleagues to understand that at the heart of any solution to improve care is increasing resources to match demand and to ensure the facilities themselves are up to par. I intend to hold a hearing later this month on cooperation between VA and the Department of Defense on the treatment of injured service members, and I will pursue the situation at Walter Reed and other military treatment facilities that are handling the bulk of returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans to ensure the Government is helping those who have been injured in service to our country and their families. I wish to highlight a few of the accounts for which we are seeking substantial increases. In our estimate, we recommended an additional $300 million for treatment of traumatic brain injuries. These funds will support the expansion of VA's capacity and will help to resolve case management problems identified in an IG investigation last summer. Traumatic brain injuries are turning out to be the hallmark of this war. We simply must ensure that VA has the resources to do more than just keep up but to become a leader in brain injury care. The recent televised account of ABC newsman Bob Woodruff's long recovery from a brain injury endured in Iraq has highlighted the suffering of new veterans and their families. Looking at these young soldiers with such devastating injuries reminds us of the true costs of war. We know the transition from DOD to VA can be a tough one. This is even more true for those veterans suffering with TBI. At the start of this war, VA was unprepared to deal with returning service members with injuries of all kinds. The budgets in the early years underestimated these costs, and many VA facilities were caught flatfooted. Over the last year, VA has made strides in improving the lead brain injury centers. Yet VA still has miles to go in caring for service members when they return home to their communities. Many of these men and women are quite young and will live with brain injuries for the rest of their lives. VA must do more than simply send them back to their communities. I am also concerned that veterans with less severe forms of TBI may not be receiving appropriate compensation for their injuries. We need to make sure VA has the resources necessary to provide for specialist examinations and appropriate testing so that veterans who file claims for headaches, memory loss, and other effects of TBI may be properly compensated and rehabilitated. We also recommended an increase of $693 million over the administration's request for VA mental health programs. These funds are essential to guarantee timely access to mental health services for veterans of the global war on terror and prior conflicts, including the Vietnam war. We have heard too many stories already of veterans in crisis who were unable to see a mental health professional because of a lack of staff or beds at VA facilities. It is about time we fully fund VA's mental health programs so that not one more troubled veteran finds himself or herself on the street for lack of therapy, counseling or, far worse, takes his or her own life. As chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am deeply committed to having all in Congress recognize the reality that meeting the needs of veterans is truly part of the ongoing costs of war. I urge my fellow Senators to join us as we work to uphold our end of the bargain by giving our Nation's veterans accessible first-rate medical care. We owe it to them and they deserve it. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Kamehameha Varsity Cheer Team which won the National High School Cheerleading Championship at Walt Disney World in Orlando, FL, on February 9 to 11, 2007. The Kamehameha squad received top marks from the competition's judges, garnering a total of 713 points, thereby capturing the Small Varsity Division title. The Warriors advanced to the national championship by winning 1 of 58 regional competitions held across the country and was 1 of 6 teams to advance directly to the finals. At the national competition, Kamehameha faced off against 55 rival squads. In the final round of competition, the young women of Kamehameha demonstrated amazing skill and athleticism acquired over many months of rigorous training. The Kamehameha Varsity Cheer Team includes captains Corinne Chun, Jasmine Merseberg, Kendra Uson, and Keeny Won; and members Erika Castro, Kelli Ann Uehara, Cristina Lei Luke, Kanani Kekuawela, Savannah Wolfe, Kacie Kamaka`ala, Ashley Murakami, Robbi Bulatao, and Chelsea Bega. The team is led by cohead coaches Melissa Beimes and Dolly Wong, along with varsity coaches Giselle Ann-Kim and Shannon Cosma, all Kamehameha School alumnae. I congratulate the Kamehameha Varsity Cheer Team on their accomplishment, and I wish all of them the best in their future endeavors. I extend the same congratulations to all members and coaches who participated in this year's National High School Cheerleading Championship on a job well done.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this Sunday, March 4, will mark the 86th anniversary of the enactment of a measure which established the Tomb of the Unknowns, honoring those members of the U.S. Armed Forces who fell in battle but who were not able to be identified, those ``known but to God.'' By its very nature, war takes life. Parents lose children, children lose parents, and with each passing this country loses a son or daughter that makes this Nation what it is, great. No funeral or ceremony can stop the pain that cuts deep into the families of servicemembers who have been killed in action. But for the families of servicemembers missing in action, the cutting pain of loss remains an open wound. At the end of the First World War, this country asked itself questions related to those American soldiers who were unknown or missing in action. Where would those families come to pray, to grieve? Where would the rest of us go to ponder how it is we should honor them? Eighty-six years ago, Members of Congress, standing in the Capitol where we stand today, sought to respond to those questions. Eighty-six years later, the Tomb of the Unknowns stands honored and guarded. Since 1937, Tomb Guards of the 3rd U.S. Infantry have safeguarded those buried in the tomb, every minute of every day, never failing. They epitomize our Nation's commitment to honor all of America's unknown and missing soldiers. On this occasion, choosing to reflect on the Tomb of the Unknowns and what it means would be of value to us all. We should think of the the families of the missing, the spirits of the unknown soldiers, and of the Tomb Guards, who honor them. For myself, I extend heartfelt feelings my prayers for the families, my deepest gratitude to those unknown soldiers, honored by us all, though ``known but to God,''and my respect to those entrusted to guard the tomb.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator DeMint, and in support of employee protections for Transportation Security Officers TSOs at the Transportation Security Administration It is only fair to give TSOs the same rights and protections as other employees at the Department of Homeland Security. The provision in S. 4 would allow the President to put TSOs in the same personnel system that President Bush argued was needed for homeland security employees in 2002 in order to put the right people in the right jobs at the right pay--to hold employees accountable--and to reorganize and quickly shift resources to meet new terrorist threats. Although DHS was authorized to waive certain provisions of title 5 related to pay, labor relations, and employee appeals in order to protect the U.S. from terrorists attacks, other employee rights and protections remained--veterans preference, collective bargaining, and full whistleblower rights with appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB. It is wrong to deny these basic rights and protections to TSOs--who work for DHS. Because TSOs lack employee protections, they have one of the largest attrition rates, one of the highest workers compensation claims, and one of the lowest levels of morale among Federal employees. I recognize the efforts by TSA to address these issues, but I firmly believe that the gains made by those efforts are only temporary if employees continually feel threatened by retaliatory action or that they cannot bring their concerns to management. National security is jeopardized if agencies charged with protecting our Nation continually lose trained and talented employees due to workplace injuries and a lack of employee protections--including protection against retaliation for blowing the whistle on security breaches. Moreover, the whole point of creating DHS was to consolidate 22 agencies into one entity in order to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. By denying TSOs the same rights provided to other DHS employees, we are reinforcing the very stovepipes we sought to tear down with the Homeland Security Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business on the REAL ID Act, and I thank the chairman for his agreement.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today the Department of Homeland Security released its much anticipated proposed regulations implementing the REAL ID Act of 2005. Although I am still reviewing the 162 pages of regulations, I note that the regulations address the problems with the statutory May 11, 2008, deadline for compliance. However, the regulations remain troublesome because they reflect the problems of the underlying statute. I intend to ensure that these problems are resolved, which is why I reintroduced the Identity Security Enhancement Act, S. 717, to repeal REAL ID and replace it with the negotiated rulemaking process and the more reasonable guidelines established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. I am pleased to be joined ``by Senators Sununu, Leahy, and Tester. I also thank Senator Collins for her work on this issue. From its inception, REAL ID has been surrounded in controversy and subject to criticism from both ends of the political spectrum. The act places a significant unfunded mandate on States and is a serious threat to privacy and civil liberties. I support the goal of making our identification cards and driver's licenses more secure, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission. However, the massive amounts of personal information that would be stored in interconnected databases, as well as on the card, could provide one- stop shopping for identity thieves. As a result, REAL ID could make us less secure by giving us a false sense of security. Nearly half of our Nation's State legislatures--22--have acted to introduce or to pass legislation to condemn REAL ID since the beginning of the year. In some cases, States would be prohibited from spending money to implement the act. Two bills have been introduced in the Hawaii State legislature, one supporting the repeal of REAL ID and the other supporting passage of my legislation. As I noted earlier, DHS has acknowledged the implementation problems and the need to help address the burdens on States. Secretary Chertoff announced today that States could easily apply for a waiver from the compliance deadline and could use up to 20 percent of the State's Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP, funds to pay for REAL ID implementation. But this is a hollow solution. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposes to cut SHSGP by $835 million. I fail to see how States are able to implement an $11 billion program with Federal homeland security grants that the Bush administration continues to cut. Moreover, the regulations proposed today fail to address several of the most critical privacy and civil liberties issues raised by REAL ID, which essentially creates a national ID. No hearings were held on REAL ID when it was passed as part of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act in 2005. I think this is part of the problem and is where I hope to bring forth a solution. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, I plan to hold hearings in the near future to review the proposed regulations and how DHS plans to implement this costly and controversial law. Unfunded mandates and the lack of privacy and security requirements are real problems that deserve real consideration and real solutions. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that driver's licenses and ID cards issued in the United States are affordable, practical, and secure--both from would-be terrorists and identity thieves. I look forward to working with my colleagues--Senators Sununu, Leahy, Tester, Collins and others--to address the real problems with REAL ID. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet Protection Act of 2007. In 1966, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act to prevent the abuse and mistreatment of animals and to provide assurance that family pets would not be sold for laboratory experiments. Although the Animal Welfare Act provides a solid foundation to stop the mistreatment of animals, more needs to be done to protect pets and pet owners from the actions of Class B animal dealers, also known as ``random source'' dealers. Across the Nation, random source animal dealers acquire tens of thousands of dogs and cats, many of them family pets, through deceit and fraud. Some of their tactics include tricking animals owners into giving away their dogs and cats by posing as someone interested in pet adoption and the outright theft of family pets left unattended. The treatment of the animals captured and sold by random source dealers is often shocking and cruel. Hundreds of animals are kept in squalid conditions with just enough food and water to keep them alive until sold. This bill does not address the larger issue of whether animals should or should not be used in research facilities. Medical research is one of our primary weapons in the discovery of new drugs and surgical techniques that help develop cures for life-threatening diseases and animal research has been, and continues to be, a fundamental part of scientific advances. Instead, this legislation targets the unethical practice of selling stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities. While I do not believe that research laboratories intentionally seek out fraudulently obtained animals, it does happen. And it does need to be stopped. My bill will strengthen the Animal Welfare Act by prohibiting the use of random source animal dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories by making funds unavailable to research facilities that purchase animals from a dealer that holds a Class B license under the Animal Welfare Act. In doing so, it also simultaneously encourages the use of legitimate sources such as USDA- licensed Class A dealers. I urge my colleagues to join me in my efforts to curb the abusive practices of random source dealers by supporting this bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from New Hampshire, Vermont, and Montana, Senators Sununu, Leahy and Tester, to reintroduce legislation to address problems with the REAL ID Act of 2005. Last year, Senator Sununu and I introduced S. 4117, the Identity Security Enhancement Act, which would repeal the REAL ID Act and reinstitute the shared rulemaking process and more reasonable guidelines established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. We joined together to convey our concerns with REAL ID to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and to urge the Department to ensure that the forthcoming regulations implementing REAL ID addressed our concerns. Now, on the eve of DHS releasing the proposed REAL ID regulations, we once again introduce our legislation as a placeholder as Congress and the American people review how DHS proposes to implement this costly and controversial law. I plan to hold a hearing on the REAL ID regulations in the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee shortly, and I will develop comprehensive legislation to address any privacy and civil liberties issues arising under the Act and any unrealistic burdens placed on the states. From the time the REAL ID Act became law nearly two years ago, hundreds of organizations--ranging from the National Governor's Association (NGA) to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)--have voice their strong opposition to REAL ID. None of these groups were heard by Congress before the bill was passed in May 2005 as there were no hearings to understand the repercussions of such sweeping legislation. Rather, the REAL ID Act was attached to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act (P.L. 109-13) in Conference. It was wrong to include the legislation that has such a massive impact on State and local governments without their input. Not having a full debate on the measure to determine its impact has led an increasing number of State legislatures to introduce and pass legislation to condemn REAL ID and, in some cases, prohibit the state from spending money to implement the Act. My two primary concerns with REAL ID are that the law places an unrealistic and unfunded burden on state governments and erodes Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights. There is nothing realistic about REAL ID. The extremely costly and complex set of electronic systems that will be required to connect the thousands of local Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) to one another and to a host of Federal agencies as required under REAL ID may not be practical. This would cost $1.42 billion according to a September 2006 report issued by the NGA, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). In addition, the costs to re-issue every current driver's license under the new screening process is estimated to cost approximately $8 billion over five years. Combined with the other requirements imposed on states by REAL ID, such as new design requirements for the ID cards and on-site security, REAL ID will cost over $11 billion. Congress has appropriated only $40 million for REAL ID implementation, which leaves a hefty price tag for the states, especially for legislation that was passed with no review. In addition to the unrealistic burden REAL ID places on states, REAL ID is a serious threat to our privacy rights and civil liberties. As I said last year, the REAL ID Act will require every driver's licensing agency to collect and store substantial numbers of records containing licensees' most sensitive personally identifiable information, including one's social security number, proof of residence, and biometric identifiers such as a digital photograph and signature. If the state databases are compromised, they will provide one-stop access to virtually all information necessary to commit identity theft. Moreover, the sharing of the aggregated personally identifiable information of licensees between and amongst various government agencies and employees at the federal, state, and local level, as contemplated by the REAL ID Act, potentially allows millions of individuals access to that information without protections or safeguards. Despite these obvious threats to Americans' privacy, the REAL ID Act fails to mandate privacy protections for individuals' information nor does it provide states with the means to implement data security and anti-hacking protections that will be required to safeguard the new databases mandated by the Act. REAL ID exacerbates the threat of identity theft which threatens our security by giving us a false sense of security. Unfunded mandates and the lack of privacy and security requirements are real problems that deserve real consideration and real solutions. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that driver's licenses and ID cards issued in the United States are secure--both from would-be terrorists and identity thieves--affordable, and practical. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from New Hampshire, Vermont, and Montana, Senators Sununu, Leahy and Tester, to reintroduce legislation to address problems with the REAL ID Act of 2005. Last year, Senator Sununu and I introduced S. 4117, the Identity Security Enhancement Act, which would repeal the REAL ID Act and reinstitute the shared rulemaking process and more reasonable guidelines established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. We joined together to convey our concerns with REAL ID to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and to urge the Department to ensure that the forthcoming regulations implementing REAL ID addressed our concerns. Now, on the eve of DHS releasing the proposed REAL ID regulations, we once again introduce our legislation as a placeholder as Congress and the American people review how DHS proposes to implement this costly and controversial law. I plan to hold a hearing on the REAL ID regulations in the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee shortly, and I will develop comprehensive legislation to address any privacy and civil liberties issues arising under the Act and any unrealistic burdens placed on the states. From the time the REAL ID Act became law nearly two years ago, hundreds of organizations--ranging from the National Governor's Association (NGA) to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)--have voice their strong opposition to REAL ID. None of these groups were heard by Congress before the bill was passed in May 2005 as there were no hearings to understand the repercussions of such sweeping legislation. Rather, the REAL ID Act was attached to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act (P.L. 109-13) in Conference. It was wrong to include the legislation that has such a massive impact on State and local governments without their input. Not having a full debate on the measure to determine its impact has led an increasing number of State legislatures to introduce and pass legislation to condemn REAL ID and, in some cases, prohibit the state from spending money to implement the Act. My two primary concerns with REAL ID are that the law places an unrealistic and unfunded burden on state governments and erodes Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights. There is nothing realistic about REAL ID. The extremely costly and complex set of electronic systems that will be required to connect the thousands of local Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) to one another and to a host of Federal agencies as required under REAL ID may not be practical. This would cost $1.42 billion according to a September 2006 report issued by the NGA, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). In addition, the costs to re-issue every current driver's license under the new screening process is estimated to cost approximately $8 billion over five years. Combined with the other requirements imposed on states by REAL ID, such as new design requirements for the ID cards and on-site security, REAL ID will cost over $11 billion. Congress has appropriated only $40 million for REAL ID implementation, which leaves a hefty price tag for the states, especially for legislation that was passed with no review. In addition to the unrealistic burden REAL ID places on states, REAL ID is a serious threat to our privacy rights and civil liberties. As I said last year, the REAL ID Act will require every driver's licensing agency to collect and store substantial numbers of records containing licensees' most sensitive personally identifiable information, including one's social security number, proof of residence, and biometric identifiers such as a digital photograph and signature. If the state databases are compromised, they will provide one-stop access to virtually all information necessary to commit identity theft. Moreover, the sharing of the aggregated personally identifiable information of licensees between and amongst various government agencies and employees at the federal, state, and local level, as contemplated by the REAL ID Act, potentially allows millions of individuals access to that information without protections or safeguards. Despite these obvious threats to Americans' privacy, the REAL ID Act fails to mandate privacy protections for individuals' information nor does it provide states with the means to implement data security and anti-hacking protections that will be required to safeguard the new databases mandated by the Act. REAL ID exacerbates the threat of identity theft which threatens our security by giving us a false sense of security. Unfunded mandates and the lack of privacy and security requirements are real problems that deserve real consideration and real solutions. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that driver's licenses and ID cards issued in the United States are secure--both from would-be terrorists and identity thieves--affordable, and practical. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet Protection Act of 2007. In 1966, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act to prevent the abuse and mistreatment of animals and to provide assurance that family pets would not be sold for laboratory experiments. Although the Animal Welfare Act provides a solid foundation to stop the mistreatment of animals, more needs to be done to protect pets and pet owners from the actions of Class B animal dealers, also known as ``random source'' dealers. Across the Nation, random source animal dealers acquire tens of thousands of dogs and cats, many of them family pets, through deceit and fraud. Some of their tactics include tricking animals owners into giving away their dogs and cats by posing as someone interested in pet adoption and the outright theft of family pets left unattended. The treatment of the animals captured and sold by random source dealers is often shocking and cruel. Hundreds of animals are kept in squalid conditions with just enough food and water to keep them alive until sold. This bill does not address the larger issue of whether animals should or should not be used in research facilities. Medical research is one of our primary weapons in the discovery of new drugs and surgical techniques that help develop cures for life-threatening diseases and animal research has been, and continues to be, a fundamental part of scientific advances. Instead, this legislation targets the unethical practice of selling stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities. While I do not believe that research laboratories intentionally seek out fraudulently obtained animals, it does happen. And it does need to be stopped. My bill will strengthen the Animal Welfare Act by prohibiting the use of random source animal dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories by making funds unavailable to research facilities that purchase animals from a dealer that holds a Class B license under the Animal Welfare Act. In doing so, it also simultaneously encourages the use of legitimate sources such as USDA- licensed Class A dealers. I urge my colleagues to join me in my efforts to curb the abusive practices of random source dealers by supporting this bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. I rise today with my distinguished colleagues Senators Harry Reid, Daniel Inouye, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, and Edward Kennedy to introduce a bill which will award special immigrant status to the children of naturalized Filipino veterans who fought in World War II thereby allowing these veterans to become reunited with their families. With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, the courage of many Filipino soldiers who fought alongside our troops during World War II was finally honored and acknowledged by our government and they were offered the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship. However, the Act did not extend this opportunity to the sons and daughters of these veterans. As a result, many of the brave men who defended this Nation may spend the last years of their lives without the comfort and care of their families. For over twenty years, many of the sons and daughters of these soldiers have been waiting to obtain immigrant visas. While some have been fortunate enough to have their visas approved, other are still waiting because of a backlog. This is unacceptable. My legislation will finally allow them to reunite with their elderly parents. I urge my Senate colleagues to honor the sacrifices of these brave men by supporting this bill and allowing those who have served our country so valiantly to have their families by their side for the remainder of their years.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. I rise today with my distinguished colleagues Senators Harry Reid, Daniel Inouye, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, and Edward Kennedy to introduce a bill which will award special immigrant status to the children of naturalized Filipino veterans who fought in World War II thereby allowing these veterans to become reunited with their families. With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, the courage of many Filipino soldiers who fought alongside our troops during World War II was finally honored and acknowledged by our government and they were offered the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship. However, the Act did not extend this opportunity to the sons and daughters of these veterans. As a result, many of the brave men who defended this Nation may spend the last years of their lives without the comfort and care of their families. For over twenty years, many of the sons and daughters of these soldiers have been waiting to obtain immigrant visas. While some have been fortunate enough to have their visas approved, other are still waiting because of a backlog. This is unacceptable. My legislation will finally allow them to reunite with their elderly parents. I urge my Senate colleagues to honor the sacrifices of these brave men by supporting this bill and allowing those who have served our country so valiantly to have their families by their side for the remainder of their years.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Disabled Veterans Insurance Improvement Act of 2007. The legislation would increase the amount of supplemental life insurance available to totally disabled veterans from $20,000 to $40,000. Many totally disabled veterans find it difficult to obtain commercial life insurance. These are the veterans we are trying to help with this legislation by providing them with a reasonable amount of life insurance coverage. VA's Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance, commonly known as S-DVI, was established during the Korean War to provide life insurance for veterans with service-connected disabilities. This $10,000 benefit has never been increased. In comparison, the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance and Veterans' Group Life Insurance benefits, which were $10,000 and $20,000 respectively at their inception, have been increased over time to $400,000. The most recent increases to these programs have been in response to public sentiment and the determination by Congress that the amount provided to the beneficiaries of servicemembers who die while fighting in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom is insufficient. In 1992, Congress increased the amount of life insurance available to S-DVI policyholders by offering $20,000 worth of supplemental coverage to those who are considered totally disabled. Forty percent of the veterans enrolled in the S-DVI program are considered totally disabled and are eligible for a premium waiver for their basic coverage. In fiscal year 2006, thirty-two percent of veterans granted new policy waivers also opted to pay for this supplemental coverage. Even with $30,000 in coverage, the amount of life insurance available to disabled veterans falls well short of the death benefits available to servicemembers and veterans enrolled in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance and Veterans' Group Life Insurance programs. The 2001 Congressionally mandated study entitled Program Evaluation of Benefits for Survivors of Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities found the lowest area of veteran satisfaction to be the maximum amount of coverage that veterans were authorized to purchase. My bill would allow totally disabled veterans to purchase an additional $20,000 in insurance coverage. I ask my colleagues to support the Disabled Veterans Insurance Improvement Act of 2007. This is a modest and affordable way of increasing the life insurance coverage for those veterans with the greatest need. I realize that there are paygo implications associated with this legislation and I am actively looking for ways to pay for this bill. I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this week we commemorate National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week. In recent years, more than 10 million letters and cards, and thousands of personal visits have warmed the hearts of hospitalized veterans during National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week. This wonderful outpouring of gratitude has reached across the VA health care system's 155 hospitals, their 130-plus nursing homes, and 45 domiciliaries--which comprise the Nation's largest integrated health care system. I commend each and every person who has or will use this week as an opportunity to show their gratitude and respect to hospitalized veterans. Yet I do not feel that we should stop when this week ends. Hospitalized veterans, and all veterans, should remain in our hearts and minds throughout the year. With them in mind, I want to discuss, at this fitting moment, the President's budget proposal for VA. I am concerned that President Bush's budget for VA medical care is out of touch with the demands being placed on the VA health care system. After accounting for inflation and increased utilization costs, President Bush's budget for VA health care translates to a mere fourteen-hundredth of a 1-percent increase in VA's health care budget. The President proposes that the VA health system's budget stays virtually the same, while veterans' needs are changing and increasing. Nearly 3,500 men and women in uniform have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and nearly 25,000 have been wounded in action. Veterans of previous wars are increasingly facing age-related health concerns. This is a critical time of critical need. At this time, is a budget increase translating to less than one-seventh of one percent responsible? Is it really enough? We should salute our hospitalized veterans by providing the funds for the health care they need and have earned. After all, who can accept the alternative? Should we turn away aging veterans? Deny proper medical care to the physically wounded and mentally scarred? Is it any good to have a week honoring hospitalized veterans if we do not tend to their wounds in the coming year? I believe serving veterans is a priority, especially those with urgent, pressing medical needs. On this week as much as any other, we must make attending to those needs a budget priority as well.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Disabled Veterans Insurance Improvement Act of 2007. The legislation would increase the amount of supplemental life insurance available to totally disabled veterans from $20,000 to $40,000. Many totally disabled veterans find it difficult to obtain commercial life insurance. These are the veterans we are trying to help with this legislation by providing them with a reasonable amount of life insurance coverage. VA's Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance, commonly known as S-DVI, was established during the Korean War to provide life insurance for veterans with service-connected disabilities. This $10,000 benefit has never been increased. In comparison, the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance and Veterans' Group Life Insurance benefits, which were $10,000 and $20,000 respectively at their inception, have been increased over time to $400,000. The most recent increases to these programs have been in response to public sentiment and the determination by Congress that the amount provided to the beneficiaries of servicemembers who die while fighting in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom is insufficient. In 1992, Congress increased the amount of life insurance available to S-DVI policyholders by offering $20,000 worth of supplemental coverage to those who are considered totally disabled. Forty percent of the veterans enrolled in the S-DVI program are considered totally disabled and are eligible for a premium waiver for their basic coverage. In fiscal year 2006, thirty-two percent of veterans granted new policy waivers also opted to pay for this supplemental coverage. Even with $30,000 in coverage, the amount of life insurance available to disabled veterans falls well short of the death benefits available to servicemembers and veterans enrolled in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance and Veterans' Group Life Insurance programs. The 2001 Congressionally mandated study entitled Program Evaluation of Benefits for Survivors of Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities found the lowest area of veteran satisfaction to be the maximum amount of coverage that veterans were authorized to purchase. My bill would allow totally disabled veterans to purchase an additional $20,000 in insurance coverage. I ask my colleagues to support the Disabled Veterans Insurance Improvement Act of 2007. This is a modest and affordable way of increasing the life insurance coverage for those veterans with the greatest need. I realize that there are paygo implications associated with this legislation and I am actively looking for ways to pay for this bill. I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that would preserve existing seats on the District of Columbia Superior Court. I am pleased that Senators Voinovich and Lieberman are joining me in this effort. As my colleagues know, the Superior Court is the trial court of general jurisdiction over local matters in the District of Columbia. When a vacancy on the court occurs, the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission solicits applicants to fill the vacancy and sends three names to the President. The President then selects one candidate and sends the individual's nomination to the Senate for confirmation. Existing law caps the total number of judges on the Superior Court at 59. However, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 created three new seats for the Family Court, which is a division of the Superior Court, but failed to increase the overall cap on the number of judges seated on the court. As a result, three existing seats in the other divisions of the court--including the criminal, civil, probate, and tax divisions--were effectively eliminated. Therefore, when vacancies in those divisions occur, new judges cannot be seated. Ever since the Family Court Act became law, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Senate has been in the untenable position of delaying the confirmation of judicial nominees when the cap has been reached. The end result is that residents of DC will face delay of justice due to a lack of judicial personnel. The bill we introduce today would address this problem by amending the DC Code to increase the cap on the number of associate judges on the Superior Court. Similar legislation introduced by my good friend Senator Collins in both the 108th and 109th Sessions of Congress was favorably reported by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and passed by the Senate. I urge my colleagues to once again support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with my good friend, the senior Senator from Ohio, in reintroducing legislation today to establish a Deputy Secretary for Management who would be the chief management officer at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I am especially pleased that we are joined by two of our colleagues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Levin, who is also the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator McCaskill. The Department of Homeland Security continues to face serious challenges, some of which stem from integrating 22 separate entities with existing management problems into one agency. Such a broad, large- scale merger is why the Government Accountability Office (GAO) continues to place DHS on the GAO High-Risk List. Our bill would assign overall management responsibilities to one individual who would be accountable for leading and instituting change. A Deputy Secretary for Management would provide the leadership necessary to move forward and sustain these needed changes. This presidentially appointed and Senate- confirmed individual, who will have a term of office of five years, would serve as a bridge between political appointees and career employees. Changing agency culture is difficult and takes time. As Comptroller General David Walker notes, successful transformation initiatives in large private and public sector organizations can take at least five to seven years. In addition to serving as chairman of Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, I am also the chairman of the Armed Services Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee, and I have witnessed firsthand how the Department of Defense (DoD) continues to struggle with business modernization despite clear congressional directives to do so. We cannot afford to allow the Department of Homeland Security, which has an extremely complex and critical mission, to be affected by the same management problems facing DoD. Our bill is born out of our concern and frustration that DHS is not doing better. We believe elevating the Under Secretary for Management to the Deputy Secretary level will provide DHS the necessary tools needed to avoid making the same mistakes as DoD. Having a single focus for key management functions, such as human capital, financial management, information technology, acquisition management, and performance management are essential if DHS is to avoid the stovepipe style of management at DoD. A Deputy Secretary for Management would bring needed attention to management issues and transformational change; would integrate various key operational and transformation efforts; and would institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and leading change. Our bill enhances, not diminishes, the ability of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS to focus on policy decisions while leaving the management efforts to the Deputy Secretary for Management. It is good business practice to have one individual responsible for integrating strategic plans and overseeing change. I would like to note that the Homeland Security Advisory Council, established to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, created a Culture Task Force (CTF) at the request of Secretary Chertoff in June 2006. The CTF issued its recommendations to the Secretary last month. The January 2007 Report of the Homeland Security Culture Task Force recommends establishing an operational leadership position, ``who would report to the Secretary and be responsible for the high level Department-wide measures aimed at generating and sustaining operational integration and alignment of the component organizations.'' Congress has a responsibility to ensure that agencies are instituting sound management practices that will empower agencies to spend taxpayer dollars more wisely while carrying out critical missions. A fully accountable chief management officer at DHS will make the difference by ensuring strong leadership over essential government programs.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that would preserve existing seats on the District of Columbia Superior Court. I am pleased that Senators Voinovich and Lieberman are joining me in this effort. As my colleagues know, the Superior Court is the trial court of general jurisdiction over local matters in the District of Columbia. When a vacancy on the court occurs, the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission solicits applicants to fill the vacancy and sends three names to the President. The President then selects one candidate and sends the individual's nomination to the Senate for confirmation. Existing law caps the total number of judges on the Superior Court at 59. However, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 created three new seats for the Family Court, which is a division of the Superior Court, but failed to increase the overall cap on the number of judges seated on the court. As a result, three existing seats in the other divisions of the court--including the criminal, civil, probate, and tax divisions--were effectively eliminated. Therefore, when vacancies in those divisions occur, new judges cannot be seated. Ever since the Family Court Act became law, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Senate has been in the untenable position of delaying the confirmation of judicial nominees when the cap has been reached. The end result is that residents of DC will face delay of justice due to a lack of judicial personnel. The bill we introduce today would address this problem by amending the DC Code to increase the cap on the number of associate judges on the Superior Court. Similar legislation introduced by my good friend Senator Collins in both the 108th and 109th Sessions of Congress was favorably reported by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and passed by the Senate. I urge my colleagues to once again support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with my good friend, the senior Senator from Ohio, in reintroducing legislation today to establish a Deputy Secretary for Management who would be the chief management officer at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I am especially pleased that we are joined by two of our colleagues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Levin, who is also the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator McCaskill. The Department of Homeland Security continues to face serious challenges, some of which stem from integrating 22 separate entities with existing management problems into one agency. Such a broad, large- scale merger is why the Government Accountability Office (GAO) continues to place DHS on the GAO High-Risk List. Our bill would assign overall management responsibilities to one individual who would be accountable for leading and instituting change. A Deputy Secretary for Management would provide the leadership necessary to move forward and sustain these needed changes. This presidentially appointed and Senate- confirmed individual, who will have a term of office of five years, would serve as a bridge between political appointees and career employees. Changing agency culture is difficult and takes time. As Comptroller General David Walker notes, successful transformation initiatives in large private and public sector organizations can take at least five to seven years. In addition to serving as chairman of Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, I am also the chairman of the Armed Services Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee, and I have witnessed firsthand how the Department of Defense (DoD) continues to struggle with business modernization despite clear congressional directives to do so. We cannot afford to allow the Department of Homeland Security, which has an extremely complex and critical mission, to be affected by the same management problems facing DoD. Our bill is born out of our concern and frustration that DHS is not doing better. We believe elevating the Under Secretary for Management to the Deputy Secretary level will provide DHS the necessary tools needed to avoid making the same mistakes as DoD. Having a single focus for key management functions, such as human capital, financial management, information technology, acquisition management, and performance management are essential if DHS is to avoid the stovepipe style of management at DoD. A Deputy Secretary for Management would bring needed attention to management issues and transformational change; would integrate various key operational and transformation efforts; and would institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and leading change. Our bill enhances, not diminishes, the ability of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS to focus on policy decisions while leaving the management efforts to the Deputy Secretary for Management. It is good business practice to have one individual responsible for integrating strategic plans and overseeing change. I would like to note that the Homeland Security Advisory Council, established to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, created a Culture Task Force (CTF) at the request of Secretary Chertoff in June 2006. The CTF issued its recommendations to the Secretary last month. The January 2007 Report of the Homeland Security Culture Task Force recommends establishing an operational leadership position, ``who would report to the Secretary and be responsible for the high level Department-wide measures aimed at generating and sustaining operational integration and alignment of the component organizations.'' Congress has a responsibility to ensure that agencies are instituting sound management practices that will empower agencies to spend taxpayer dollars more wisely while carrying out critical missions. A fully accountable chief management officer at DHS will make the difference by ensuring strong leadership over essential government programs.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, earlier this week the Senate had an opportunity to begin debate on Iraq and the current plan proposed by President Bush. While I and 48 of my colleagues supported moving forward with this important debate, others in this Chamber elected to prevent discussion on an issue of national importance. I understand that there are doubts as to what is the proper course of action to pursue in Iraq. We all wish for victory. We all wish for an end to the death and destruction. None of us want to waste additional lives in futile missions, or futile gestures. We all wish for a stable, democratic Iraq--and I would add to that Afghanistan, as this conflict is being waged on more than one front. We all share those common desires and none of us, none of us can predict the future. But what we can do is to apply our wisdom and judgement as to what is the best course of action for the United States to take. That task is our solemn duty. We cannot perform that duty with all the honesty and clarity that this great body--the United States Senate--is known for if we cannot begin debate. Denying an open discussion of the issues of grave importance to our national security does not serve our Nation well. We are at a great turning point and the consequences of this policy must be debated. Future generations will be affected by the course of action our Nation takes in the Middle East. No one can say with certainty which path will lead us toward light and which could lead us toward a darker future. But these courses of action demand debate. Right now our Nation's wealth is being poured into a growing maelstrom in the Middle East--a storm that is engulfing the lives of our most talented soldiers, a storm that is exhausting our national treasure and sinking us deeper into a debt that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying off. It means our Nation's education, environment, health, and transportation systems are eroding for a lack of basic resources. Again, the consequences of this policy must be debated. In Iraq, there is a clear choice: support the President's policy of full steam ahead and continue the current policy of putting American soldiers in harm's way or shift strategy and make it clear that it is time for the Iraqi government to govern and Iraqi troops to protect the Iraqi people. In any case, whatever policy advocated--whether one supports staying in, getting out now, or getting out later--those choices deserve to be fully and completely debated and voted on in the United States Senate. I urge my colleagues on the other side to support a full and open debate on the President's Iraq policy. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the National Foreign Language Coordination Act with my colleagues Senators Thad Cochran, Christopher Dodd, and Russell Feingold. We are joined by Representative Brian Baird, who is offering a companion bill in the House of Representatives today as well. The legislation we introduce today would implement a key recommendation of the 2004 Department of Defense, DOD, National Language Conference to establish a National Foreign Language Coordination Council, chaired by a National Language Director. An integrated foreign language strategy and sustained leadership within the Federal Government is needed to address the lack of foreign language proficient speakers in government and in business. Without such a coordinated strategy, I fear that the country's national and economic security will be at greater risk. The communications failures of 9/11 clearly demonstrate that we can no longer ignore the consequence of our citizens being unable to converse fluently in languages other than English. The fact that only 9.3 percent of all Americans speak both their native languages and another language fluently, compared with 56 percent of people in the European Union is troubling. The Iraq Study Group reported last month that of the 1,000 American embassy employees in Baghdad, only 33 speak Arabic, and just 6 of them are fluent in this critical language. The shortfall of skilled linguists prompted the Iraq Study Group to recommend that ``The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence should accord the highest possible priority to professional language proficiency and cultural training, in general and specifically for U.S. officers and personnel about to be assigned to Iraq.'' The Federal Government has an essential role to play by collaborating with educators, State and local governments, foreign language associations, and the private sector to increase the number of Americans who speak and understand foreign languages. A National Foreign Language Coordination Council brings these diverse interests together to shape a much needed, comprehensive approach. Just as I have advocated the need for deputy secretaries for management at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to direct and sustain management leadership, I envision a National Language Director to be responsible for maintaining and leading a cooperative effort to strengthen our foreign language capabilities. Our Nation's security is at risk without a sufficient number of foreign language proficient individuals. Counterterrorism intelligence will go untranslated and opportunities will be missed. Equally important is preserving the economic competitiveness of the United States. Globalization means that Americans must compete for jobs in a marketplace no longer confined to the boundaries of the United States. In short, both the security and economic vitality of the United States are tied to improving foreign language education. However, according to the Committee on Economic Development, many of our schools do not have foreign language programs that address the educational challenges of the 21st century. Many American students lack sufficient knowledge of other countries, languages, and cultures to compete effectively in the global marketplace. Specifically, our bill ensures that the key recommendations of the DOD National Language Conference will be implemented by: Developing policies and programs that build the Nation's language and cultural understanding capability; engaging Federal, State, and local agencies and the private sector in solutions; developing language and cultural competency across public and private sectors; developing language skills in a wide range of critical languages; strengthening our education system, programs, and tools in foreign languages and cultures; and integrating language training into career fields and increase the number of language professionals. Last week, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, which I chair, held a hearing on the Federal Government's language strategy. Dr. Diane Birckbich1er, director of the Foreign Language Center and chair of the Departments of French and Italian at Ohio State University, testified that ``if there is a national language strategy, it isn't very well known.'' She further recommended the development of a national language policy to create a language-ready workforce for the future. To strengthen the role of the United States in the world, our country must ensure that there is a sufficient number of individuals who are proficient in languages other than their native languages. Increasing foreign language skills enhances national security, just as increasing foreign language skills enhances the ability of Americans to compete on a more global playing field. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 110th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Craig, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the National Foreign Language Coordination Act with my colleagues Senators Thad Cochran, Christopher Dodd, and Russell Feingold. We are joined by Representative Brian Baird, who is offering a companion bill in the House of Representatives today as well. The legislation we introduce today would implement a key recommendation of the 2004 Department of Defense, DOD, National Language Conference to establish a National Foreign Language Coordination Council, chaired by a National Language Director. An integrated foreign language strategy and sustained leadership within the Federal Government is needed to address the lack of foreign language proficient speakers in government and in business. Without such a coordinated strategy, I fear that the country's national and economic security will be at greater risk. The communications failures of 9/11 clearly demonstrate that we can no longer ignore the consequence of our citizens being unable to converse fluently in languages other than English. The fact that only 9.3 percent of all Americans speak both their native languages and another language fluently, compared with 56 percent of people in the European Union is troubling. The Iraq Study Group reported last month that of the 1,000 American embassy employees in Baghdad, only 33 speak Arabic, and just 6 of them are fluent in this critical language. The shortfall of skilled linguists prompted the Iraq Study Group to recommend that ``The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence should accord the highest possible priority to professional language proficiency and cultural training, in general and specifically for U.S. officers and personnel about to be assigned to Iraq.'' The Federal Government has an essential role to play by collaborating with educators, State and local governments, foreign language associations, and the private sector to increase the number of Americans who speak and understand foreign languages. A National Foreign Language Coordination Council brings these diverse interests together to shape a much needed, comprehensive approach. Just as I have advocated the need for deputy secretaries for management at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to direct and sustain management leadership, I envision a National Language Director to be responsible for maintaining and leading a cooperative effort to strengthen our foreign language capabilities. Our Nation's security is at risk without a sufficient number of foreign language proficient individuals. Counterterrorism intelligence will go untranslated and opportunities will be missed. Equally important is preserving the economic competitiveness of the United States. Globalization means that Americans must compete for jobs in a marketplace no longer confined to the boundaries of the United States. In short, both the security and economic vitality of the United States are tied to improving foreign language education. However, according to the Committee on Economic Development, many of our schools do not have foreign language programs that address the educational challenges of the 21st century. Many American students lack sufficient knowledge of other countries, languages, and cultures to compete effectively in the global marketplace. Specifically, our bill ensures that the key recommendations of the DOD National Language Conference will be implemented by: Developing policies and programs that build the Nation's language and cultural understanding capability; engaging Federal, State, and local agencies and the private sector in solutions; developing language and cultural competency across public and private sectors; developing language skills in a wide range of critical languages; strengthening our education system, programs, and tools in foreign languages and cultures; and integrating language training into career fields and increase the number of language professionals. Last week, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, which I chair, held a hearing on the Federal Government's language strategy. Dr. Diane Birckbich1er, director of the Foreign Language Center and chair of the Departments of French and Italian at Ohio State University, testified that ``if there is a national language strategy, it isn't very well known.'' She further recommended the development of a national language policy to create a language-ready workforce for the future. To strengthen the role of the United States in the world, our country must ensure that there is a sufficient number of individuals who are proficient in languages other than their native languages. Increasing foreign language skills enhances national security, just as increasing foreign language skills enhances the ability of Americans to compete on a more global playing field. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.