Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I introduce the Veterans Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act of 2007. This measure would direct the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to increase, effective December 1, 2007, the rates of veterans' compensation to keep pace with the rising cost-of-living in this country. The rate adjustment is equal to that provided on an annual basis to Social Security recipients and is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index. Several of my colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including Ranking Member, Larry Craig, and Senators Rockefeller, Murray, Sanders, Brown, Webb, and Ensign join me in introducing this important legislation. Congress regularly enacts an annual cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, for veterans' compensation in order to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of the veterans and their families who depend upon this income to meet their daily needs. This past year Congress passed, and the President signed into law, Public Law 109-361, which resulted in a COLA increase of 3.3 percent for 2007. It is important that we view veterans compensation, including the annual COLA, and indeed all benefits earned by veterans, as a continuing cost of war. It is clear that the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to result in injuries and disabilities that will yield an increase in claims for compensation. Studies by VA indicate that the most significant predictor of new claims activity is the size of the active force. More than 1 million servicemembers have deployed in support of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. And, according to the Department of Defense, as of today there have been 24,216 reported casualties during these operations. This number, however, does not take into account conditions that develop over the course of a war, including musculoskeletal disorders. Therefore VA can expect a significant increase in the number of new claims for compensation as a result of these ongoing conflicts. The COLA affects, among other benefits, veterans' disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children. Many of these more than 3 million recipients of those benefits depend upon these tax-free payments not only to provide for their own basic needs, but those of their spouses, children and parents as well. Without an annual COLA increase, these veterans and their families would see the value of their hard-earned benefits slowly diminish, and we, as a Congress, would be in dereliction of our duty to ensure that those who sacrificed so much for this country receive the benefits and services to which they are entitled. Disbursement of disability compensation to our Nation's veterans constitutes one of the core missions of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is a necessary measure of gratitude afforded to those veterans whose lives were irrevocably altered by their service to this country. I urge our colleagues to support passage of this COLA increase. I also ask our colleagues for their continued support for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I introduce the Veterans Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act of 2007. This measure would direct the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to increase, effective December 1, 2007, the rates of veterans' compensation to keep pace with the rising cost-of-living in this country. The rate adjustment is equal to that provided on an annual basis to Social Security recipients and is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index. Several of my colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including Ranking Member, Larry Craig, and Senators Rockefeller, Murray, Sanders, Brown, Webb, and Ensign join me in introducing this important legislation. Congress regularly enacts an annual cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, for veterans' compensation in order to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of the veterans and their families who depend upon this income to meet their daily needs. This past year Congress passed, and the President signed into law, Public Law 109-361, which resulted in a COLA increase of 3.3 percent for 2007. It is important that we view veterans compensation, including the annual COLA, and indeed all benefits earned by veterans, as a continuing cost of war. It is clear that the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to result in injuries and disabilities that will yield an increase in claims for compensation. Studies by VA indicate that the most significant predictor of new claims activity is the size of the active force. More than 1 million servicemembers have deployed in support of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. And, according to the Department of Defense, as of today there have been 24,216 reported casualties during these operations. This number, however, does not take into account conditions that develop over the course of a war, including musculoskeletal disorders. Therefore VA can expect a significant increase in the number of new claims for compensation as a result of these ongoing conflicts. The COLA affects, among other benefits, veterans' disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children. Many of these more than 3 million recipients of those benefits depend upon these tax-free payments not only to provide for their own basic needs, but those of their spouses, children and parents as well. Without an annual COLA increase, these veterans and their families would see the value of their hard-earned benefits slowly diminish, and we, as a Congress, would be in dereliction of our duty to ensure that those who sacrificed so much for this country receive the benefits and services to which they are entitled. Disbursement of disability compensation to our Nation's veterans constitutes one of the core missions of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is a necessary measure of gratitude afforded to those veterans whose lives were irrevocably altered by their service to this country. I urge our colleagues to support passage of this COLA increase. I also ask our colleagues for their continued support for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senators Ted Stevens, R-AK, Carl Levin, D-MI, Susan Collins, R-ME, Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, John Kerry, D-MA, Barbara Boxer, D-CA, Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and Robert Menendez, D-NJ to introduce the Downed Animal and Food Safety Protection Act of 2007, legislation intended to protect people from the unnecessary spread of disease. This bill, which has bipartisan support, would prohibit the use of nonambulatory animals for human consumption. Nonambulatory animals, also known as downed animals, are livestock such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines that are too sick to stand or walk unassisted. Many of these animals are dying from infectious diseases and present a significant pathway for the spread of disease. The safety of our Nation's food supply is of the utmost importance. With the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, also known as mad-cow disease, and other strains of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, TSE, which are related animal diseases found not only in nearby countries but also in the United States, it is important that we take all measures necessary to ensure that our food is safe. Currently, before slaughter, the United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, Food Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, diverts downer livestock only if they exhibit clinical signs associated with BSE. Routinely, BSE is not correctly distinguished from many other diseases and conditions that show similar symptoms. The ante-mortem inspection that is currently used in the United States is very similar to the inspection process in Europe, which has proved to be inadequate for detecting BSE. Consequently, if BSE were present in a U.S. downed animal, it could currently be offered for slaughter. If the animal showed no clinical signs of the disease, the animal would then pass an ante-mortem inspection, making the diseased animal available for human consumption. The BSE agent could then cross-contaminate the normally safe muscle tissue during slaughter and processing. The disposal of downer livestock would ensure that the BSE agent would not be recycled to contaminate otherwise safe meat. There are other TSE diseases already known to us such as scrapie that affects sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk, and classic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans, all of which are present in the United States. Because our knowledge of such diseases is limited, the inclusion of horses, mules, swine, and other equine in this act are a necessary precaution. This precautionary measure is needed in order to ensure that the human population is not affected by diseased livestock. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has already created regulations that prevent imports of all live cattle and other ruminants and certain ruminant products from countries where BSE is known to exist. In 1997, the FDA placed a prohibition on the use of all mammalian protein, with a few exceptions, in animal feed given to cattle and other ruminants. These regulations are a good start in protecting us from the possible spread of BSE, however, they do not go far enough, because they still allow the processing of downer cattle. According to a study performed by the Harvard School of the Public Health in conjunction with the USDA and surveillance data from European countries, downer cattle are at high risk for BSE. According to the Harvard Study, the removal of nonambulatory cattle from the population intended for slaughter would reduce the probability of spreading BSE by 82 percent. The USDA and the FDA have acknowledged that downed animals serve as a potential pathway for the spread of BSE. While both have entertained the idea of prohibiting the rendering of downed cattle, they have taken no formal action. It is imperative that we, Congress, ensure that downer livestock does not enter our food chain, and the best way to accomplish this task is to codify the prohibition of downer livestock from entering our food supply. The Downed Animal Protection Act fills a gap in the current USDA and FDA regulations. The bill calls for the humane euthanization of nonambulatory livestock, both for interstate and foreign commerce. The euthanization of nonambulatory livestock would remove this high risk population from the portion of livestock reserved for our consumption. Due to the presence of other TSE diseases found throughout other species of livestock, all animals that fit under the definition of livestock will be included in this bill. The benefits of my bill are numerous, for both the public and the industry. On the face of it, the bill will prevent needless suffering by humanely euthanizing nonambulatory animals. The removal of downed animals from our products will insure that they are safer and of better quality. The reduction in the likelihood of disease would result in safer working conditions for persons handling livestock. This added protection against disease would help the flow of livestock and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce, making commerce in livestock more easily attainable. Some individuals fear that this bill would place an excessive financial burden on the livestock industry. I want to remind my colleagues that one single downed cow in Canada diagnosed with BSE in 2003 shut down the world's third largest beef exporter. It is estimated that the Canadian beef industry lost more than $1 billion when more than 30 countries banned Canadian cattle and beef upon the discovery of BSE. As the Canadian cattle industry continues to recover from its economic loss, it is prudent for the United States to be proactive in preventing BSE and other animal diseases from entering our food chain. Today, the USDA has increased its efforts to test approximately ten percent of downed cattle per year for BSE. However, it is my understanding that the USDA is looking to revisit this issue. I do not believe that now is the time to lower our defenses. We must protect our livestock industry and human health from diseases such as BSE. This bill reduces the threat of passing diseases from downed livestock to our food supply. It ensures downed animals will not be used for human consumption. It also requires higher standards for food safety and protects the human population from diseases and the livestock industry from economic distress. American consumers should be able to rely on the Federal Government to ensure that meat and meat by-products are safe for human consumption. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senators Ted Stevens, R-AK, Carl Levin, D-MI, Susan Collins, R-ME, Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, John Kerry, D-MA, Barbara Boxer, D-CA, Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and Robert Menendez, D-NJ to introduce the Downed Animal and Food Safety Protection Act of 2007, legislation intended to protect people from the unnecessary spread of disease. This bill, which has bipartisan support, would prohibit the use of nonambulatory animals for human consumption. Nonambulatory animals, also known as downed animals, are livestock such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines that are too sick to stand or walk unassisted. Many of these animals are dying from infectious diseases and present a significant pathway for the spread of disease. The safety of our Nation's food supply is of the utmost importance. With the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, also known as mad-cow disease, and other strains of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, TSE, which are related animal diseases found not only in nearby countries but also in the United States, it is important that we take all measures necessary to ensure that our food is safe. Currently, before slaughter, the United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, Food Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, diverts downer livestock only if they exhibit clinical signs associated with BSE. Routinely, BSE is not correctly distinguished from many other diseases and conditions that show similar symptoms. The ante-mortem inspection that is currently used in the United States is very similar to the inspection process in Europe, which has proved to be inadequate for detecting BSE. Consequently, if BSE were present in a U.S. downed animal, it could currently be offered for slaughter. If the animal showed no clinical signs of the disease, the animal would then pass an ante-mortem inspection, making the diseased animal available for human consumption. The BSE agent could then cross-contaminate the normally safe muscle tissue during slaughter and processing. The disposal of downer livestock would ensure that the BSE agent would not be recycled to contaminate otherwise safe meat. There are other TSE diseases already known to us such as scrapie that affects sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk, and classic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans, all of which are present in the United States. Because our knowledge of such diseases is limited, the inclusion of horses, mules, swine, and other equine in this act are a necessary precaution. This precautionary measure is needed in order to ensure that the human population is not affected by diseased livestock. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has already created regulations that prevent imports of all live cattle and other ruminants and certain ruminant products from countries where BSE is known to exist. In 1997, the FDA placed a prohibition on the use of all mammalian protein, with a few exceptions, in animal feed given to cattle and other ruminants. These regulations are a good start in protecting us from the possible spread of BSE, however, they do not go far enough, because they still allow the processing of downer cattle. According to a study performed by the Harvard School of the Public Health in conjunction with the USDA and surveillance data from European countries, downer cattle are at high risk for BSE. According to the Harvard Study, the removal of nonambulatory cattle from the population intended for slaughter would reduce the probability of spreading BSE by 82 percent. The USDA and the FDA have acknowledged that downed animals serve as a potential pathway for the spread of BSE. While both have entertained the idea of prohibiting the rendering of downed cattle, they have taken no formal action. It is imperative that we, Congress, ensure that downer livestock does not enter our food chain, and the best way to accomplish this task is to codify the prohibition of downer livestock from entering our food supply. The Downed Animal Protection Act fills a gap in the current USDA and FDA regulations. The bill calls for the humane euthanization of nonambulatory livestock, both for interstate and foreign commerce. The euthanization of nonambulatory livestock would remove this high risk population from the portion of livestock reserved for our consumption. Due to the presence of other TSE diseases found throughout other species of livestock, all animals that fit under the definition of livestock will be included in this bill. The benefits of my bill are numerous, for both the public and the industry. On the face of it, the bill will prevent needless suffering by humanely euthanizing nonambulatory animals. The removal of downed animals from our products will insure that they are safer and of better quality. The reduction in the likelihood of disease would result in safer working conditions for persons handling livestock. This added protection against disease would help the flow of livestock and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce, making commerce in livestock more easily attainable. Some individuals fear that this bill would place an excessive financial burden on the livestock industry. I want to remind my colleagues that one single downed cow in Canada diagnosed with BSE in 2003 shut down the world's third largest beef exporter. It is estimated that the Canadian beef industry lost more than $1 billion when more than 30 countries banned Canadian cattle and beef upon the discovery of BSE. As the Canadian cattle industry continues to recover from its economic loss, it is prudent for the United States to be proactive in preventing BSE and other animal diseases from entering our food chain. Today, the USDA has increased its efforts to test approximately ten percent of downed cattle per year for BSE. However, it is my understanding that the USDA is looking to revisit this issue. I do not believe that now is the time to lower our defenses. We must protect our livestock industry and human health from diseases such as BSE. This bill reduces the threat of passing diseases from downed livestock to our food supply. It ensures downed animals will not be used for human consumption. It also requires higher standards for food safety and protects the human population from diseases and the livestock industry from economic distress. American consumers should be able to rely on the Federal Government to ensure that meat and meat by-products are safe for human consumption. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I wish to give praise and congratulations to Tadd Fujikawa, a 16-year-old sophomore from Moanalua High School, who on Friday, January 12, made golf history for the State of Hawaii. By shooting a 4-under-par 66 during the second round of the Sony Open at the Waialae Country Club, Tadd became the youngest player in 50 years to make the cut at a PGA tour event. Tadd demonstrated amazing skill and focus on the course. Despite standing just five feet, one inch tall, his 285-yard drives and accurate iron play propelled him up the tournament leaderboard. In the end, he tied for 20th place, besting some of the world's premier golfers. Tadd's drive and competitive spirit may be a result of his early struggles as a premature baby. At birth, Tadd weighed less than two pounds and was given a 50 percent chance of survival. He didn't just survive, he flourished. Last year, at age 15, he became one of the youngest players ever to compete in golf's national championship, the U.S. Open. Also impressive are Tadd's exploits in the sport of judo, where he has won four junior national titles. I offer my most sincere congratulations, to Tadd Fujikawa, for his exceptional performance in the Sony Open. May he take away from this experience the confidence to do great things, as he has already shown the potential to achieve them. I wish Tadd the best in all that he chooses to undertake in the future.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I today introduce legislation that, if enacted, will help ensure that returning servicemembers receive the care they need from VA in the 5 years immediately following detachment or deactivation, without having to meet strict eligibility rules. The changes this legislation would make will contribute to the ``seamless'' transition of military personnel from active duty to veteran status. This legislation is identical to the bill I introduced last Congress. Today, any active duty servicemember who is discharged or separated from active duty following deployment to a theater of combat--including Reservists or Guard who stand down but remain on reserve duty--is eligible for VA health care for a 2-year period. In my view, it is vital that this period be extended to 5 years to provide a more appropriate window of time for servicemembers to access VA care. Since the start of OEF and OIF, an average of 157,800 servicemembers have been discharged or deactivated per year. This legislation will help the existing 315,600 veterans who have been inactive for more than 2 years but fewer than 5, and thousands more in the future. Following the first Persian Gulf War, and partially in response to the unexplained illnesses among those who served, Congress enacted the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. This law gave 2 years of priority eligibility for health care to any veteran who served in a theater of combat following discharge or deactivation from active duty. The original intent was to ensure health care for servicemembers after their active duty health care benefits ended. It is now clear this the 2 year window of eligibility is insufficient. There are two primary reasons to amend the law to allow a greater period of eligibility: protection from budget cuts and access to care for conditions, including mental health conditions, that may not be readily apparent when a servicemember first leaves active duty. In recent years, funding for VA health care has been delayed or cut by the legislative and appropriations processes, leading to delayed or denied care to those veterans with lower priority for VA care. Those veterans who have served in a theater of combat operations deserve to have their health care guaranteed for at least the first 5 years immediately following their discharge or detachment. With regard to mental health, 2 years is often insufficient time for symptoms related to PTSD and other mental illnesses to manifest. In many cases, it takes years for such symptoms to present themselves, and many servicemembers do not immediately seek care. Experts predict that up to 30 percent of OEF/OIF servicemembers will need some type of readjustment services. Five years would provide a bigger window to address these risks. We face a growing group of recently discharged veterans, and this legislation will help smooth their transition to civilian life. One final reason, that I believe this legislation is necessary, is that extending the window of eligibility for VA health care services may also serve to prevent homelessness among veterans. We all know that veterans represent a disproportionate segment of the homeless population, and that is a national tragedy. While we continue to battle homelessness among older veterans from Vietnam and other conflicts, we must do all we can to ensure that none of the new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan fall through the cracks. Providing more time for them to access VA's services is a key part of that effort. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, as I believe it is truly a way to honor the service of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I today introduce legislation that, if enacted, will help ensure that returning servicemembers receive the care they need from VA in the 5 years immediately following detachment or deactivation, without having to meet strict eligibility rules. The changes this legislation would make will contribute to the ``seamless'' transition of military personnel from active duty to veteran status. This legislation is identical to the bill I introduced last Congress. Today, any active duty servicemember who is discharged or separated from active duty following deployment to a theater of combat--including Reservists or Guard who stand down but remain on reserve duty--is eligible for VA health care for a 2-year period. In my view, it is vital that this period be extended to 5 years to provide a more appropriate window of time for servicemembers to access VA care. Since the start of OEF and OIF, an average of 157,800 servicemembers have been discharged or deactivated per year. This legislation will help the existing 315,600 veterans who have been inactive for more than 2 years but fewer than 5, and thousands more in the future. Following the first Persian Gulf War, and partially in response to the unexplained illnesses among those who served, Congress enacted the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. This law gave 2 years of priority eligibility for health care to any veteran who served in a theater of combat following discharge or deactivation from active duty. The original intent was to ensure health care for servicemembers after their active duty health care benefits ended. It is now clear this the 2 year window of eligibility is insufficient. There are two primary reasons to amend the law to allow a greater period of eligibility: protection from budget cuts and access to care for conditions, including mental health conditions, that may not be readily apparent when a servicemember first leaves active duty. In recent years, funding for VA health care has been delayed or cut by the legislative and appropriations processes, leading to delayed or denied care to those veterans with lower priority for VA care. Those veterans who have served in a theater of combat operations deserve to have their health care guaranteed for at least the first 5 years immediately following their discharge or detachment. With regard to mental health, 2 years is often insufficient time for symptoms related to PTSD and other mental illnesses to manifest. In many cases, it takes years for such symptoms to present themselves, and many servicemembers do not immediately seek care. Experts predict that up to 30 percent of OEF/OIF servicemembers will need some type of readjustment services. Five years would provide a bigger window to address these risks. We face a growing group of recently discharged veterans, and this legislation will help smooth their transition to civilian life. One final reason, that I believe this legislation is necessary, is that extending the window of eligibility for VA health care services may also serve to prevent homelessness among veterans. We all know that veterans represent a disproportionate segment of the homeless population, and that is a national tragedy. While we continue to battle homelessness among older veterans from Vietnam and other conflicts, we must do all we can to ensure that none of the new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan fall through the cracks. Providing more time for them to access VA's services is a key part of that effort. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, as I believe it is truly a way to honor the service of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, much has been said recently about the way in which VA purchases drugs and the manner in which medications are provided to beneficiaries. This discussion has been a part of the ongoing debate to allow Medicare to negotiate for drugs on behalf of its beneficiaries. Concerns have been raised about veterans' access to drugs, the quality of the benefit, and VA's formulary and pricing. Veterans medication coverage has been misunderstood. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight about the process by which VA achieves drug cost savings and the level of care afforded to veterans. VA is different than Medicare for a variety of reasons, there is no doubt, but I believe some lessons can be applied to address Medicare drug prices. While there is no question that VA's formulary is an important component of VA pharmacy management, decisions about which drugs are on the formulary are not made by bureaucrats nor are they made by those solely concerned about the bottom line. VA employs a scientific review process to select drugs to be available to beneficiaries and to ensure quality care. Physicians and clinical pharmacists from the VA's regional offices manage the formulary. While some concern has been expressed that the VA formulary covers only 30 percent of the 4,300 drugs available on Medicare's market- priced formulary, this is not the case. Rather, it is my understanding that VA actually offers 11 percent more drugs than are available under Part D of Medicare. VA offers 4,778 drugs by way of a ``core'' national formulary which requires that they must be made available at all VA medical care facilities. If a drug is needed which is not on the formulary, VA has a quick process to ensure that the drug will be prescribed. This off- formulary process is so robust, in fact, that last year, VA dispensed prescriptions for an additional 1,416 drugs. So, to put a finer point on this, when a non-formulary medication is clinically needed--it is provided. To those who argue that VA's formulary is ``among the most restrictive in the marketplace,'' I would only say that the Institute of Medicine took a good long look at VA and found that in many respects it is actually less restrictive than other public or private formularies. The chairman of the IOM committee said that if VA did not have a formulary process like it has, they would have indeed urged that one be created just like it. Some have suggested that veterans receive substandard care because of the VA drug benefit The literature says otherwise. Veterans get better pharmaceutical care than private or public hospitals, according to a study last year published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. VA's mail order pharmacy has been criticized, as well. VA employs nearly 10,000 pharmacists and technicians and is regarded by many pharmacy organizations as excellent. VA also operates 230 outpatient pharmacies. VA also trains more doctors of pharmacy than any other single organization in the U.S. And most significantly, while the error rate for prescriptions in the U.S. is between 3 and 8 percent, the error rate in VA is less than one one-hundredth of one percent. In VA, new drugs are reviewed on their merits and are made available quickly if they provide distinct benefits. Safety and how well a drug works are the most important considerations in the review process, followed by cost. I could go on. We know that VA gets the best prices, but I think the essential question is: Do veterans get the necessary drugs to promote the best health care? The answer--based on peer-reviewed studies--is a resounding yes. The quality of medical care in VA is significantly higher for overall quality in chronic care and preventative care. And if some believe that veterans aren't happy with their drug access and pricing, it is news to me, and to the administration. Just last week, VA announced results of a survey done by an independent reviewer of customer satisfaction. For the seventh straight year, the Department of Veterans Affairs has received significantly higher ratings than the private health care industry. VA's marks keep continuing to rise. When veterans' groups testify before Congress about their needs and desires, the only thing they say about their drug coverage is that they want to keep it the way it is. Peer-reviewed studies, veterans service organizations, polls, and consumer reports consistently testify to the superiority of VA health care over private sector care. The VA formulary has been repeatedly reviewed and approved by Congress, GAO and the Institute of Medicine. Consumer choice provides clear insight into the success of the VA pharmacy management system. We can learn a number of lessons from the VA as we consider Medicare price negotiations. I support drug price negotiation by Medicare. As chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I will closely monitor the evolution of this issue to ensure VA retains access to affordable drugs. The gains that can be made in Medicare--and the improvement of quality--are just too great to do nothing. I ask unanimous consent that the VA's summary of the study to which I previously referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I acknowledge the contributions of a dedicated public servant, Joe Whitaker. Joe currently serves as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Installations and Housing. This makes Joe Whitaker the most senior career civilian official in the Army responsible for military installation issues such as the construction of new facilities and housing for our soldiers and their families. Joe Whitaker's service to the Army includes both military and civilian service, and he is retiring as a member of the Senior Executive Service at the end of this month after a career of over 35 years of dedicated public service to the U.S. Army. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, I appreciate the challenges Joe Whitaker has faced over the past few years trying to modernize the facilities where our soldiers live and work. These challenges include: an Army at war; the 2005 round of base realignment and closures; the so-called modular conversion of the Army from a division-based force to a brigade-based force; and the relocation of thousands of Army personnel and dependents from Europe to the United States. This would be a significant set of challenges to deal with even if they had occurred one after the other, but Joe Whitaker and the Army have had to address them simultaneously, and I commend him for the job he has done in meeting these challenges. As a Senator from the State of Hawaii, I have seen first hand the improvements in both military capability and quality of life that have taken place for the Army in Hawaii thanks to the efforts of Joe Whitaker and others in the executive and legislative branches. This includes the privatization and improvement of over 7,800 homes for Army families in Hawaii under the Residential Communities Initiative and the construction of facilities to stand up a Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Hawaii. Our Army forces in Hawaii are better off because of Joe Whitaker's contributions. Dedicated career civil servants like Joe Whitaker are so important to the work of the Army and other Federal agencies. They provide the continuity, background of knowledge and experience, and relationships that the political appointees representing any administration need to get things accomplished. This is even more true in the military, where effective command during the relatively brief tours of senior military leaders would not be possible without the expertise of career civil servants like Joe Whitaker. Finally, the members and staff of our committee have also known they could rely on Joe Whitaker as a candid, hard-working partner in our shared responsibility for providing for our men and women in uniform and their families. On behalf of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support and the entire Senate Armed Services Committee, I express our appreciation to Joe Whitaker for his contributions, and dedication to, the soldiers of the U.S. Army and his country, and I wish him success in his future endeavors.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Hawaii to introduce the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. This bill, which is of great importance to the people of Hawaii, establishes a process to extend the Federal policy of self- governance and self-determination to Hawaii's indigenous people. The bill provides parity in Federal policies that empower our country's other indigenous people--merican Indians and Alaska Natives--to participate in a government-to-government relationship with the United States. January 17, 2007, commemorates the 114th anniversary of Hawaii's beloved Queen Liliuokalani being deposed. Although this event may seem like a distant memory, it is a poignant event that expedited the decline of a proud and self-governing people. The overthrow facilitated Native Hawaiians being disenfranchised from not only their culture and land, but from their way of life. Native Hawaiians had to endure the forced imprisonment of their Queen and witness the deterioration and near eradication of their culture and tradition in their own homeland, at the hands of foreigners committed exclusively to propagating Western values and conventions. While Congress has traditionally treated Native Hawaiians in a manner parallel to American Indians and Alaska Natives, the Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination has not been formally extended to Native Hawaiians. The bill itself does not extend Federal recognition--it authorizes the process for Federal recognition. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 does three things: (1) It authorizes an office in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States; (2) It forms an interagency coordinating group composed of officials from Federal agencies who currently administer programs and services impacting Native Hawaiians; and (3) It authorizes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. Once the Native Hawaiian governing entity is recognized, the bill establishes an inclusive, democratic negotiations process representing both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians. Negotiations between the Native Hawaiian entity and the Federal and State governments may address issues such as the transfer of lands, assets, and natural resources and jurisdiction over such lands, assets, and natural resources, as well as other longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Any transfers of governmental authority or power will require implementing legislation at the State and Federal levels. The Hawaii congressional delegation has devoted much time and careful consideration into crafting this legislation. When I first started this process in 1999, our congressional delegation created five working groups to assist with the drafting of this legislation. The working groups were composed of individuals from the Native Hawaiian community, the State of Hawaii, Federal Government, Indian country, Members of Congress, and experts in constitutional law. Collectively, more than 100 people worked together on the initial draft of this legislation. The meetings held with the Native Hawaiian community were open to the public and a number of individuals who had differing views attended the meetings and provided their alternative views on the legislation. In August 2000, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Committee on Resources held joint field hearings on the legislation in Hawaii for 5 days. While the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives in the 106th Congress, the Senate failed to take action. The bill was subsequently considered by the 107th, l08th, and 109th Congresses. In each Congress, the bill has been favorably reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and its companion measure has been favorably reported by the House Committee on Resources in the 106th through the 108th Congress. Most recently in the 109th Congress clarifications were made to the bill. I want to inform my colleagues to the fact that this bill is identical to legislative language negotiated between Senator Inouye and myself, and officials from the Department of Justice, Office of Management and Budget, and the White House. The language satisfactorily addresses concerns expressed in July 2005 by the Bush administration regarding the liability of the United States in land claims, the impact of the bill on military readiness, gaming, and civil and criminal jurisdiction in Hawaii. With respect to liability of the United States as it relates to land claims, as the author of the Apology Resolution, P.L. 103-150, as well as the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, I have always maintained that this legislation is not intended to serve as a settlement of any claims nor as a cause of action for any claims. The negotiated language makes clear that any grievances regarding historical wrongs committed against Native Hawaiians by the United States or by the State of Hawaii are to be addressed in the negotiations process between the Native Hawaiian governing entity and Federal and State governments. As a senior member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, as well as the incoming Chairman on the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, military readiness for our Armed Forces is of great importance to me. Due to concerns raised by the Department of Defense to the consultation requirements expected to be facilitated by the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior and the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group; negotiated language exempts the Department from these consultation requirements. However, these exemptions do not alter nor terminate requirements of the DoD to consult with Native Hawaiians under the Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, NAGPRA, National Historic Preservation Act, NHPA, and other existing statutes. The bill does not authorize gaming by the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Negotiated language clarifies that gaming may not be conducted by Native Hawaiians or the Native Hawaiian governing entity as a matter of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal laws or regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior or the National Indian Gaming Commission. The bill also makes clear that the prohibition applies to any efforts to establish gaming by Native Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian governing entity in Hawaii and in any other State or Territory. This language only applies to efforts to establish gaming operations as a matter of inherent authority as indigenous peoples or under federal laws pertaining to gaming by native peoples. The bill makes clear that civil and criminal jurisdiction currently held by the Federal and State governments will remain with the Federal and State governments unless otherwise negotiated and implementing legislation is enacted. I have described the clarifications that have been made so my colleagues know that our negotiations with the administration have been successful. This language has been publicly available since September 2005 and has been widely distributed. Although such clarifications have been made, I am proud to report that the bill remains true to its intent and purpose--to clarify the existing legal and political relationship between Hawaii's indigenous people, Native Hawaiians and the United States. Along with our efforts to work with the Bush administration, during the past 4 years, we have worked closely with Hawaii's first Republican governor in 40 years, Governor Linda Lingle to enact this legislation. We have also worked closely with the Hawaii State legislature which has passed three resolutions unanimously in support of federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. I am pleased to announce today that I am again joined by members from both sides of the aisle to introduce this important measure. I mention this, to underscore the fact that this is bipartisan legislation. In addition to its widespread support by both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians in Hawaii, in resolutions adopted by the oldest and largest national Indian organization, the National Congress of American Indians, and the largest organization representing the Native people of Alaska, the Alaska Federation of Natives, the members of both groups have consistently expressed their strong support for enactment of a bill to provide for recognition by the United States of a Native Hawaiian governing entity. Organizations such as the American Bar Association, Japanese American Citizen League, and the National Indian Education Association have also passed resolutions in support of federal recognition for Hawaii's indigenous peoples. Today I provide my colleagues with a framework to understand the need for this legislation by briefly reviewing (1) Hawaii's past, ancient Hawaiian society prior to Western contact, (2) Hawaii's present, the far reaching consequences of the overthrow, and (3) Hawaii's future. Hawaii was originally settled by Polynesian voyagers arriving as early as 300 A.D, 1200 years before Europe's great explorers Magellan and Columbus. The Hawaiians braved immense distances guided by their extensive knowledge of navigation and understanding of the marine environment. Isolation followed the era of long voyages, enabling Native Hawaiians to develop distinct political, economic, and social structures which were mutually supportive. As stewards of the land and sea, Native Hawaiians were intimately linked to the environment and they developed innovative methods of agriculture, aquaculture, navigation and irrigation. With an influx of foreigners into Hawaii, Native Hawaiian populations plummeted due to death from common Western diseases. Those that survived witnessed foreign interest and involvement in their government grow until Queen Liliuokalani was forced by American citizens to abdicate her right to the throne. This devastated the Native Hawaiian people, forever tainting the waters of their identity and tattering the very fabric of their society. For some this injustice, this wound has never healed, manifesting itself in a sense of inferiority and hopelessness leaving many Native Hawaiians at the lowest levels of achievement by all social and economic measures. Mr. President, 14 years ago the United States enacted the Apology Resolution, 103-150, which acknowledged the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in which the United States offered an apology to Native Hawaiians and declared its policy to support reconciliation efforts. This is a landmark declaration for it recognizes not only are Native Hawaiians the indigenous people of Hawaii, but of the urgent need for the U.S. to actively engage in reconciliation efforts. This acknowledgment played a crucial role in initiating a healing process and although progress has been made, the path ahead is uncertain. Frustration has led to anger and festered in the hearts of Hawaii's younger generations, with each child that is taught about this period of Hawaiian history, a loss is relived. It is a burden that Native Hawaiians since the overthrow continue to carry, to know that they were violated in their own homeland and their governance was ripped away unjustly. Despite the perceived harmony, it is the generation of my grandchildren that is growing impatient and frustrated with the lack of progress being made. Influenced by a deep sadness and growing intolerance, an active minority within this generation seeks independence from the United States. It is for this generation that I work to enact this bill so that there is the structured process to deal with these emotional issues. It is important that discussions are held and that there is a framework to guide appropriate action. For Hawaii is the homeland of the Native Hawaiian people. A lack of action by the U.S. will only incite and fuel us down a path to a divided Hawaii. A Hawaii where lines and boundaries are drawn and unity severed. However, the legislation I introduce today seeks to build upon the foundation of reconciliation. It provides a structured process to bring together the people of Hawaii, along a path of healing to a Hawaii where its indigenous people are respected and culture is embraced. Respecting the rights of America's first people--American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians is not un-American. Through enactment of this legislation, we have the opportunity to demonstrate that our country does not just preach its ideas, but lives according to its founding principles. That the United States will admit when it has trespassed against a people and remain resolute to make amends. We demonstrate our character to ourselves and to the world by respecting the rights of our country's indigenous people. As it has for America's other indigenous peoples, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Native Hawaiians. I am proud of the fact that this bill respects the rights of Hawaii's indigenous peoples through a process that is consistent with Federal law, and it provides the structured process for the people of Hawaii to address the longstanding issues which have plagued both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians since the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. We have an established record of the United States' commitment to the reconciliation with Native Hawaiians. This legislation is another step building upon that foundation and honoring that commitment. I ask my colleagues to join me in enacting this legislation which is of great importance to all the people of Hawaii. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Hawaii to introduce the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. This bill, which is of great importance to the people of Hawaii, establishes a process to extend the Federal policy of self- governance and self-determination to Hawaii's indigenous people. The bill provides parity in Federal policies that empower our country's other indigenous people--merican Indians and Alaska Natives--to participate in a government-to-government relationship with the United States. January 17, 2007, commemorates the 114th anniversary of Hawaii's beloved Queen Liliuokalani being deposed. Although this event may seem like a distant memory, it is a poignant event that expedited the decline of a proud and self-governing people. The overthrow facilitated Native Hawaiians being disenfranchised from not only their culture and land, but from their way of life. Native Hawaiians had to endure the forced imprisonment of their Queen and witness the deterioration and near eradication of their culture and tradition in their own homeland, at the hands of foreigners committed exclusively to propagating Western values and conventions. While Congress has traditionally treated Native Hawaiians in a manner parallel to American Indians and Alaska Natives, the Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination has not been formally extended to Native Hawaiians. The bill itself does not extend Federal recognition--it authorizes the process for Federal recognition. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 does three things: (1) It authorizes an office in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States; (2) It forms an interagency coordinating group composed of officials from Federal agencies who currently administer programs and services impacting Native Hawaiians; and (3) It authorizes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. Once the Native Hawaiian governing entity is recognized, the bill establishes an inclusive, democratic negotiations process representing both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians. Negotiations between the Native Hawaiian entity and the Federal and State governments may address issues such as the transfer of lands, assets, and natural resources and jurisdiction over such lands, assets, and natural resources, as well as other longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Any transfers of governmental authority or power will require implementing legislation at the State and Federal levels. The Hawaii congressional delegation has devoted much time and careful consideration into crafting this legislation. When I first started this process in 1999, our congressional delegation created five working groups to assist with the drafting of this legislation. The working groups were composed of individuals from the Native Hawaiian community, the State of Hawaii, Federal Government, Indian country, Members of Congress, and experts in constitutional law. Collectively, more than 100 people worked together on the initial draft of this legislation. The meetings held with the Native Hawaiian community were open to the public and a number of individuals who had differing views attended the meetings and provided their alternative views on the legislation. In August 2000, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Committee on Resources held joint field hearings on the legislation in Hawaii for 5 days. While the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives in the 106th Congress, the Senate failed to take action. The bill was subsequently considered by the 107th, l08th, and 109th Congresses. In each Congress, the bill has been favorably reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and its companion measure has been favorably reported by the House Committee on Resources in the 106th through the 108th Congress. Most recently in the 109th Congress clarifications were made to the bill. I want to inform my colleagues to the fact that this bill is identical to legislative language negotiated between Senator Inouye and myself, and officials from the Department of Justice, Office of Management and Budget, and the White House. The language satisfactorily addresses concerns expressed in July 2005 by the Bush administration regarding the liability of the United States in land claims, the impact of the bill on military readiness, gaming, and civil and criminal jurisdiction in Hawaii. With respect to liability of the United States as it relates to land claims, as the author of the Apology Resolution, P.L. 103-150, as well as the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, I have always maintained that this legislation is not intended to serve as a settlement of any claims nor as a cause of action for any claims. The negotiated language makes clear that any grievances regarding historical wrongs committed against Native Hawaiians by the United States or by the State of Hawaii are to be addressed in the negotiations process between the Native Hawaiian governing entity and Federal and State governments. As a senior member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, as well as the incoming Chairman on the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, military readiness for our Armed Forces is of great importance to me. Due to concerns raised by the Department of Defense to the consultation requirements expected to be facilitated by the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior and the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group; negotiated language exempts the Department from these consultation requirements. However, these exemptions do not alter nor terminate requirements of the DoD to consult with Native Hawaiians under the Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, NAGPRA, National Historic Preservation Act, NHPA, and other existing statutes. The bill does not authorize gaming by the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Negotiated language clarifies that gaming may not be conducted by Native Hawaiians or the Native Hawaiian governing entity as a matter of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal laws or regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior or the National Indian Gaming Commission. The bill also makes clear that the prohibition applies to any efforts to establish gaming by Native Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian governing entity in Hawaii and in any other State or Territory. This language only applies to efforts to establish gaming operations as a matter of inherent authority as indigenous peoples or under federal laws pertaining to gaming by native peoples. The bill makes clear that civil and criminal jurisdiction currently held by the Federal and State governments will remain with the Federal and State governments unless otherwise negotiated and implementing legislation is enacted. I have described the clarifications that have been made so my colleagues know that our negotiations with the administration have been successful. This language has been publicly available since September 2005 and has been widely distributed. Although such clarifications have been made, I am proud to report that the bill remains true to its intent and purpose--to clarify the existing legal and political relationship between Hawaii's indigenous people, Native Hawaiians and the United States. Along with our efforts to work with the Bush administration, during the past 4 years, we have worked closely with Hawaii's first Republican governor in 40 years, Governor Linda Lingle to enact this legislation. We have also worked closely with the Hawaii State legislature which has passed three resolutions unanimously in support of federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. I am pleased to announce today that I am again joined by members from both sides of the aisle to introduce this important measure. I mention this, to underscore the fact that this is bipartisan legislation. In addition to its widespread support by both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians in Hawaii, in resolutions adopted by the oldest and largest national Indian organization, the National Congress of American Indians, and the largest organization representing the Native people of Alaska, the Alaska Federation of Natives, the members of both groups have consistently expressed their strong support for enactment of a bill to provide for recognition by the United States of a Native Hawaiian governing entity. Organizations such as the American Bar Association, Japanese American Citizen League, and the National Indian Education Association have also passed resolutions in support of federal recognition for Hawaii's indigenous peoples. Today I provide my colleagues with a framework to understand the need for this legislation by briefly reviewing (1) Hawaii's past, ancient Hawaiian society prior to Western contact, (2) Hawaii's present, the far reaching consequences of the overthrow, and (3) Hawaii's future. Hawaii was originally settled by Polynesian voyagers arriving as early as 300 A.D, 1200 years before Europe's great explorers Magellan and Columbus. The Hawaiians braved immense distances guided by their extensive knowledge of navigation and understanding of the marine environment. Isolation followed the era of long voyages, enabling Native Hawaiians to develop distinct political, economic, and social structures which were mutually supportive. As stewards of the land and sea, Native Hawaiians were intimately linked to the environment and they developed innovative methods of agriculture, aquaculture, navigation and irrigation. With an influx of foreigners into Hawaii, Native Hawaiian populations plummeted due to death from common Western diseases. Those that survived witnessed foreign interest and involvement in their government grow until Queen Liliuokalani was forced by American citizens to abdicate her right to the throne. This devastated the Native Hawaiian people, forever tainting the waters of their identity and tattering the very fabric of their society. For some this injustice, this wound has never healed, manifesting itself in a sense of inferiority and hopelessness leaving many Native Hawaiians at the lowest levels of achievement by all social and economic measures. Mr. President, 14 years ago the United States enacted the Apology Resolution, 103-150, which acknowledged the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in which the United States offered an apology to Native Hawaiians and declared its policy to support reconciliation efforts. This is a landmark declaration for it recognizes not only are Native Hawaiians the indigenous people of Hawaii, but of the urgent need for the U.S. to actively engage in reconciliation efforts. This acknowledgment played a crucial role in initiating a healing process and although progress has been made, the path ahead is uncertain. Frustration has led to anger and festered in the hearts of Hawaii's younger generations, with each child that is taught about this period of Hawaiian history, a loss is relived. It is a burden that Native Hawaiians since the overthrow continue to carry, to know that they were violated in their own homeland and their governance was ripped away unjustly. Despite the perceived harmony, it is the generation of my grandchildren that is growing impatient and frustrated with the lack of progress being made. Influenced by a deep sadness and growing intolerance, an active minority within this generation seeks independence from the United States. It is for this generation that I work to enact this bill so that there is the structured process to deal with these emotional issues. It is important that discussions are held and that there is a framework to guide appropriate action. For Hawaii is the homeland of the Native Hawaiian people. A lack of action by the U.S. will only incite and fuel us down a path to a divided Hawaii. A Hawaii where lines and boundaries are drawn and unity severed. However, the legislation I introduce today seeks to build upon the foundation of reconciliation. It provides a structured process to bring together the people of Hawaii, along a path of healing to a Hawaii where its indigenous people are respected and culture is embraced. Respecting the rights of America's first people--American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians is not un-American. Through enactment of this legislation, we have the opportunity to demonstrate that our country does not just preach its ideas, but lives according to its founding principles. That the United States will admit when it has trespassed against a people and remain resolute to make amends. We demonstrate our character to ourselves and to the world by respecting the rights of our country's indigenous people. As it has for America's other indigenous peoples, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Native Hawaiians. I am proud of the fact that this bill respects the rights of Hawaii's indigenous peoples through a process that is consistent with Federal law, and it provides the structured process for the people of Hawaii to address the longstanding issues which have plagued both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians since the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. We have an established record of the United States' commitment to the reconciliation with Native Hawaiians. This legislation is another step building upon that foundation and honoring that commitment. I ask my colleagues to join me in enacting this legislation which is of great importance to all the people of Hawaii. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Wyden, Senator Bunning, Senator Inouye, and Senator Durbin, to introduce the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act in order to protect and preserve the Nation's important fossil record for the benefit of our citizens. Vertebrate fossils are rare and important natural resources that have become increasingly endangered due to an increase in the illegal collection of fossil specimens for commercial sale. However, at this time there is no unified policy regarding the treatment of fossils by Federal land management agencies which would help protect and conserve fossil specimens. Consequently, we risk the deterioration or loss of these valuable scientific resources. This Act will correct that omission by providing uniformity to the patchwork of statutes and regulations that currently exist. By creating a comprehensive national policy for preserving and managing paleontological resources found on Federal land, this Act will also be instrumental in curtailing and preventing future illegal trade thereby ensuring that many generations to come will have access to these invaluable records of our past. I would like to emphasize that this bill covers only paleontological remains on Federal lands and in no way affects archaeological or cultural resources under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and Rehabilitation Act. I would also mention that this bill is exactly the same bill that I introduced in the 109th Congress. This bill was heard and marked up by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and was passed by the Senate. As a senior member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Chair of the Subcommittee on National Parks, I am very concerned about the preservation of fossils as records of earth's past upheavals and struggles. While I recognize the value of amateur collecting--and casual collecting--of fossils is protected in this bill--fossil theft has become an increasing problem. New fossil fields and insights into the earth's past are discovered nearly every month. Paleontological resources can be sold on the market for a hefty price. For example, the complete skeleton of a T-Rex was sold for $8.6 million at auction to the Field Museum of Chicago. Consequently, they are being stolen from public lands without regard to science and education. The protections I offer in this Act are not new. Federal and management agencies have individual regulations prohibiting theft of government property. However, Congress has not provided a clear statute stating the value of paleontological resources to our Nation, as we have for archeological resources. We need to work together to make sure that we fulfill our responsibility as stewards of public lands, and as protectors of our Nation's natural resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 310 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Wyden, Senator Bunning, Senator Inouye, and Senator Durbin, to introduce the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act in order to protect and preserve the Nation's important fossil record for the benefit of our citizens. Vertebrate fossils are rare and important natural resources that have become increasingly endangered due to an increase in the illegal collection of fossil specimens for commercial sale. However, at this time there is no unified policy regarding the treatment of fossils by Federal land management agencies which would help protect and conserve fossil specimens. Consequently, we risk the deterioration or loss of these valuable scientific resources. This Act will correct that omission by providing uniformity to the patchwork of statutes and regulations that currently exist. By creating a comprehensive national policy for preserving and managing paleontological resources found on Federal land, this Act will also be instrumental in curtailing and preventing future illegal trade thereby ensuring that many generations to come will have access to these invaluable records of our past. I would like to emphasize that this bill covers only paleontological remains on Federal lands and in no way affects archaeological or cultural resources under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and Rehabilitation Act. I would also mention that this bill is exactly the same bill that I introduced in the 109th Congress. This bill was heard and marked up by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and was passed by the Senate. As a senior member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Chair of the Subcommittee on National Parks, I am very concerned about the preservation of fossils as records of earth's past upheavals and struggles. While I recognize the value of amateur collecting--and casual collecting--of fossils is protected in this bill--fossil theft has become an increasing problem. New fossil fields and insights into the earth's past are discovered nearly every month. Paleontological resources can be sold on the market for a hefty price. For example, the complete skeleton of a T-Rex was sold for $8.6 million at auction to the Field Museum of Chicago. Consequently, they are being stolen from public lands without regard to science and education. The protections I offer in this Act are not new. Federal and management agencies have individual regulations prohibiting theft of government property. However, Congress has not provided a clear statute stating the value of paleontological resources to our Nation, as we have for archeological resources. We need to work together to make sure that we fulfill our responsibility as stewards of public lands, and as protectors of our Nation's natural resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing with my dear friend, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Dan Inouye, and several of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle, a bill paying tribute to one of this body's most loyal servants. The Henry Kuualoha Giugni Kupuna Memorial Archives bill honors Henry K. Giugni, our former Sergeant-at-Arms of the U.S. Senate, through the establishment of cultural and historical digital archives. Mr. Giugni would have turned 82 today, if he were still alive. These archives will enable the sharing and perpetuation of the culture, collective memory, and history of peoples Mr. Giugni so dearly loved. As many of my colleagues are aware, Henry was a man full of life and loyalty who served our country with distinction. He enlisted in the U.S. Army at the age of 16 after the attack on Pearl Harbor. During World War II he served in combat at the battle of Guadalcanal. Following World War II, he continued to serve the State of Hawaii and our Nation by working as a police officer and firefighter. After nearly a decade of service with Senator Inouye in the Hawaii territorial legislature, he came to Washington, DC, as the senior Senator's senior executive assistant and then chief of staff for more than 20 years. Mr. Giugni was appointed in 1987 to serve as Sergeant-at-Arms of our revered body--a position that each of my colleagues and I know as crucial to the running of the Senate. Henry also sought to tear down barriers in society. In 1965 it was Mr. Giugni who represented Senator Inouye's office, and thus the people of Hawaii, in the famous 1965 Selma to Montgomery civil rights march led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As Senator Inouye's chief of staff, Mr. Giugni served as a vital link between the Senator's office and minority groups. He was the first person of color and the first Native Hawaiian to be appointed Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. In this influential position, he sought out capable minorities and women for promotion to ensure that our workforce reflects America. He appointed the first minority, an African-American, to lead the Service Department, and was the first to assign women to the Capitol Police plainclothes unit. Because of his concern about people with disabilities, Mr. Giugni enacted a major expansion of the Special Services Office, which now conducts tours of the U.S. Capitol for the blind, deaf, and wheelchair- bound, and publishes Senate maps and documents in Braille. Further in his capacity as Sergeant-at-Arms, Henry was the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. Senate and an able manager of a majority of the Senate's support services. He oversaw a budget of nearly $120 million and approximately 2,000 employees. As Sergeant-at- Arms, Mr. Giugni presided over the inauguration of President George H.W. Bush, and escorted numerous dignitaries on their visits to the U.S. Capitol, including Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Vaclav Havel. Establishing the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Memorial Archives would be a poignant and appropriate way to honor our loyal friend, colleague, and fellow American, as well as his dear wife Lani, who recently followed him to the great beyond. Henry lived a life full of rich experiences, and along the way he accumulated a wealth of wisdom. His memory and spirit live on, but it is essential we perpetuate his wisdom and experiences, and those of others like him, so what was learned and accomplished will not be lost to future generations. This is the primary impetus behind creating these archives. There is a dearth of physical archives, museums, or libraries devoted to preserving and perpetuating the history, culture, achievements and collective narratives of indigenous peoples. As one generation passes, a wealth of traditional knowledge could be lost forever. Establishing these archives to perpetuate the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples such as Henry will ensure that future generations have access to that widsom and, in a sense, will be able to learn from the original sources themselves. The development of the Internet in managing knowledge in electronic format has enabled the most pervasive storing and sharing of information the world has ever seen. Electronic, digital archives would facilitate the sharing, preservation and perpetuation of the unique native culture, language, tradition and history. These archives will be a source of enduring knowledge, accessible to all. It will help to ensure that the children of today and tomorrow will not be deprived of the rich culture, history and collective knowledge of indigenous peoples. These archives will help to guarantee that the experiences, wisdom and knowledge of kupuna, or elders such as Henry, will not be lost to future generations. The first section of the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Memorial Archives bill authorizes a grant awarded to the University of Hawaii's Academy for Creative Media for the establishment, maintenance and update of the archives which are to be located at the University of Hawaii. These funds would be used to enable a statewide archival effort which will include the acquisition of a secure, web-accessible repository that will house significant historical and cultural information. This information may include oral histories, collective narratives, photographs, video files, journals, creative works and documentation of practices and customs such as traditional dance and traditional music that were used to convey historical and cultural knowledge in the absence of written language. The funds will enable this important effort by assisting in the purchasing of equipment, hiring of personnel, and establishment of space for the collection and transfer of media, housing the archives, and creating this in-depth database. The second section of this bill authorizes the use of these grant funds for several different educational activities, many of which are intended to magnify the resourcefulness of these archives and benefit the student populations who will likely access the archives the most. This includes the development of educational materials from the archives that can be used in teaching indigenous students. Despite their focus, these materials are meant to enhance the education of all students, even students from non-native backgrounds. This also includes developing outreach initiatives to introduce the archives to elementary and secondary schools, and as enabling schools to access the archives through the computer. Grant funds would also be available to help make a college education possible for students who otherwise could not independently afford such an education through scholarship awards. Additionally, funds can be used to address the problem of cultural incongruence in teaching, an issue that impedes effective learning in our Nation's classrooms. Such a lack of congruence exists in a wide range of situations, from rural and underserved communities in remote areas to well-populated urban centers, from my State of Hawaii to areas on the eastern seaboard. The dynamic I am describing exists along lines of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic strata, age, and many other vectors, which can muddy the effective transmission of knowledge. Many of us, especially those from rural, indigenous, or ethnic minority backgrounds, including Henry Giugni, have experienced barriers to learning as we have worked our way through the education system. This bill seeks to improve student achievement by addressing cultural incongruence between teachers and the student population. This will be accomplished by providing professional development training to teachers, enabling them to better communicate with their students. Finally, as financial illiteracy is a growing problem, especially among college age youth who are exposed to a variety of financial products, funds can be used to increase the economic and financial literacy of college students. This will be accomplished through the propagation of proven best practices that have resulted in positive behavioral change in regards to improved debt and credit management, and economic decision making. Such activities can help to ensure that students stay in school, graduate in a better financial position, and remain disciplined in effectively managing their finances throughout their working and retirement years. Henry K. Giugni served among us with distinction and honor. I am very grateful to have known him and his family. I encourage all of my colleagues to perpetuate his memory by supporting the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Memorial Archives bill. These archives are the most fitting way we can honor and remember our friend and dear public servant, Henry Kuualoha Giugni. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and that support letters from University of Hawaii President David McClain and Academy for Creative Media Director Christopher Lee also be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing with my dear friend, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Dan Inouye, and several of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle, a bill paying tribute to one of this body's most loyal servants. The Henry Kuualoha Giugni Kupuna Memorial Archives bill honors Henry K. Giugni, our former Sergeant-at-Arms of the U.S. Senate, through the establishment of cultural and historical digital archives. Mr. Giugni would have turned 82 today, if he were still alive. These archives will enable the sharing and perpetuation of the culture, collective memory, and history of peoples Mr. Giugni so dearly loved. As many of my colleagues are aware, Henry was a man full of life and loyalty who served our country with distinction. He enlisted in the U.S. Army at the age of 16 after the attack on Pearl Harbor. During World War II he served in combat at the battle of Guadalcanal. Following World War II, he continued to serve the State of Hawaii and our Nation by working as a police officer and firefighter. After nearly a decade of service with Senator Inouye in the Hawaii territorial legislature, he came to Washington, DC, as the senior Senator's senior executive assistant and then chief of staff for more than 20 years. Mr. Giugni was appointed in 1987 to serve as Sergeant-at-Arms of our revered body--a position that each of my colleagues and I know as crucial to the running of the Senate. Henry also sought to tear down barriers in society. In 1965 it was Mr. Giugni who represented Senator Inouye's office, and thus the people of Hawaii, in the famous 1965 Selma to Montgomery civil rights march led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As Senator Inouye's chief of staff, Mr. Giugni served as a vital link between the Senator's office and minority groups. He was the first person of color and the first Native Hawaiian to be appointed Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. In this influential position, he sought out capable minorities and women for promotion to ensure that our workforce reflects America. He appointed the first minority, an African-American, to lead the Service Department, and was the first to assign women to the Capitol Police plainclothes unit. Because of his concern about people with disabilities, Mr. Giugni enacted a major expansion of the Special Services Office, which now conducts tours of the U.S. Capitol for the blind, deaf, and wheelchair- bound, and publishes Senate maps and documents in Braille. Further in his capacity as Sergeant-at-Arms, Henry was the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. Senate and an able manager of a majority of the Senate's support services. He oversaw a budget of nearly $120 million and approximately 2,000 employees. As Sergeant-at- Arms, Mr. Giugni presided over the inauguration of President George H.W. Bush, and escorted numerous dignitaries on their visits to the U.S. Capitol, including Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Vaclav Havel. Establishing the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Memorial Archives would be a poignant and appropriate way to honor our loyal friend, colleague, and fellow American, as well as his dear wife Lani, who recently followed him to the great beyond. Henry lived a life full of rich experiences, and along the way he accumulated a wealth of wisdom. His memory and spirit live on, but it is essential we perpetuate his wisdom and experiences, and those of others like him, so what was learned and accomplished will not be lost to future generations. This is the primary impetus behind creating these archives. There is a dearth of physical archives, museums, or libraries devoted to preserving and perpetuating the history, culture, achievements and collective narratives of indigenous peoples. As one generation passes, a wealth of traditional knowledge could be lost forever. Establishing these archives to perpetuate the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples such as Henry will ensure that future generations have access to that widsom and, in a sense, will be able to learn from the original sources themselves. The development of the Internet in managing knowledge in electronic format has enabled the most pervasive storing and sharing of information the world has ever seen. Electronic, digital archives would facilitate the sharing, preservation and perpetuation of the unique native culture, language, tradition and history. These archives will be a source of enduring knowledge, accessible to all. It will help to ensure that the children of today and tomorrow will not be deprived of the rich culture, history and collective knowledge of indigenous peoples. These archives will help to guarantee that the experiences, wisdom and knowledge of kupuna, or elders such as Henry, will not be lost to future generations. The first section of the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Memorial Archives bill authorizes a grant awarded to the University of Hawaii's Academy for Creative Media for the establishment, maintenance and update of the archives which are to be located at the University of Hawaii. These funds would be used to enable a statewide archival effort which will include the acquisition of a secure, web-accessible repository that will house significant historical and cultural information. This information may include oral histories, collective narratives, photographs, video files, journals, creative works and documentation of practices and customs such as traditional dance and traditional music that were used to convey historical and cultural knowledge in the absence of written language. The funds will enable this important effort by assisting in the purchasing of equipment, hiring of personnel, and establishment of space for the collection and transfer of media, housing the archives, and creating this in-depth database. The second section of this bill authorizes the use of these grant funds for several different educational activities, many of which are intended to magnify the resourcefulness of these archives and benefit the student populations who will likely access the archives the most. This includes the development of educational materials from the archives that can be used in teaching indigenous students. Despite their focus, these materials are meant to enhance the education of all students, even students from non-native backgrounds. This also includes developing outreach initiatives to introduce the archives to elementary and secondary schools, and as enabling schools to access the archives through the computer. Grant funds would also be available to help make a college education possible for students who otherwise could not independently afford such an education through scholarship awards. Additionally, funds can be used to address the problem of cultural incongruence in teaching, an issue that impedes effective learning in our Nation's classrooms. Such a lack of congruence exists in a wide range of situations, from rural and underserved communities in remote areas to well-populated urban centers, from my State of Hawaii to areas on the eastern seaboard. The dynamic I am describing exists along lines of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic strata, age, and many other vectors, which can muddy the effective transmission of knowledge. Many of us, especially those from rural, indigenous, or ethnic minority backgrounds, including Henry Giugni, have experienced barriers to learning as we have worked our way through the education system. This bill seeks to improve student achievement by addressing cultural incongruence between teachers and the student population. This will be accomplished by providing professional development training to teachers, enabling them to better communicate with their students. Finally, as financial illiteracy is a growing problem, especially among college age youth who are exposed to a variety of financial products, funds can be used to increase the economic and financial literacy of college students. This will be accomplished through the propagation of proven best practices that have resulted in positive behavioral change in regards to improved debt and credit management, and economic decision making. Such activities can help to ensure that students stay in school, graduate in a better financial position, and remain disciplined in effectively managing their finances throughout their working and retirement years. Henry K. Giugni served among us with distinction and honor. I am very grateful to have known him and his family. I encourage all of my colleagues to perpetuate his memory by supporting the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Memorial Archives bill. These archives are the most fitting way we can honor and remember our friend and dear public servant, Henry Kuualoha Giugni. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and that support letters from University of Hawaii President David McClain and Academy for Creative Media Director Christopher Lee also be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, which will make much needed changes to the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA. I am pleased once again to be joined in this effort by Senators Collins, Grassley, Levin, Lieberman, Leahy, Voinovich, Carper, Durbin, Pryor, and Lautenberg. Senator Levin and I first introduced this legislation in 2000. In the House, Representatives Henry Waxman and Tom Davis, the chairman and ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee, and Representative Todd Platts, who has sponsored companion legislation since 2003, have been working to enact strong whistleblower protections. Over the years, we've worked to educate our colleagues on the need to strengthen the WPA and build consensus for the legislation. I'm especially pleased that last year our bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent as an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization Act. While the measure was removed with other non-defense specific material in conference, I believe the Senate's action will provide the momentum to make a real difference for Federal whistleblowers in the 110th Congress. We agree that to ensure the success of any government program there must be appropriate checks in place to weed out mismanagement and wasteful spending. A strong and vibrant WPA is a critical tool in saving taxpayer money and ensuring an open government. The Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act addresses many court decisions that have eroded protections for Federal employees and have ignored congressional intent. Our legislation ensures that Federal whistleblowers are protected from retaliatory action when notifying the public and government leaders of waste, fraud, and abuse. If we fail to protect whistleblowers, then our efforts to improve government management, protect the public, and secure the nation will also fail. The legislation: clarifies congressional intent that Federal employees are protected for any disclosure of waste, fraud, or abuse-- including those made as part of an employee's job duties; provides an independent determination as to whether the loss or denial of a security clearance is retaliation against a whistleblower; and suspends the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' sole jurisdiction over Federal employee whistleblower cases for 5 years, which would ensure a fuller review of a whistleblower's claim. Given that the United States will be fighting the war on terror for years to come and that funding such operations requires significant resources, it is imperative that government funds are spent wisely. That is why Federal employees must be confident that they can disclose government waste, fraud, and abuse without fear of retaliation. Restoring credibility to the WPA is no less than a necessity. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this critical legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, which will make much needed changes to the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA. I am pleased once again to be joined in this effort by Senators Collins, Grassley, Levin, Lieberman, Leahy, Voinovich, Carper, Durbin, Pryor, and Lautenberg. Senator Levin and I first introduced this legislation in 2000. In the House, Representatives Henry Waxman and Tom Davis, the chairman and ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee, and Representative Todd Platts, who has sponsored companion legislation since 2003, have been working to enact strong whistleblower protections. Over the years, we've worked to educate our colleagues on the need to strengthen the WPA and build consensus for the legislation. I'm especially pleased that last year our bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent as an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization Act. While the measure was removed with other non-defense specific material in conference, I believe the Senate's action will provide the momentum to make a real difference for Federal whistleblowers in the 110th Congress. We agree that to ensure the success of any government program there must be appropriate checks in place to weed out mismanagement and wasteful spending. A strong and vibrant WPA is a critical tool in saving taxpayer money and ensuring an open government. The Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act addresses many court decisions that have eroded protections for Federal employees and have ignored congressional intent. Our legislation ensures that Federal whistleblowers are protected from retaliatory action when notifying the public and government leaders of waste, fraud, and abuse. If we fail to protect whistleblowers, then our efforts to improve government management, protect the public, and secure the nation will also fail. The legislation: clarifies congressional intent that Federal employees are protected for any disclosure of waste, fraud, or abuse-- including those made as part of an employee's job duties; provides an independent determination as to whether the loss or denial of a security clearance is retaliation against a whistleblower; and suspends the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' sole jurisdiction over Federal employee whistleblower cases for 5 years, which would ensure a fuller review of a whistleblower's claim. Given that the United States will be fighting the war on terror for years to come and that funding such operations requires significant resources, it is imperative that government funds are spent wisely. That is why Federal employees must be confident that they can disclose government waste, fraud, and abuse without fear of retaliation. Restoring credibility to the WPA is no less than a necessity. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this critical legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``The Intelligence Community Audit Act of 2007,'' with Senator Lautenberg. This legislation reaffirms the authority of the Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit the financial transactions and evaluate the programs and activities of the intelligence community (IC). Our bill is identical to S. 3968, introduced in the last Congress by Senator Lautenberg and myself, and to H.R. 6252, introduced in the House by Representative Bennie Thompson. The need for more effective oversight and accountability of our intelligence community has never been greater. In the war against terrorism, intelligence agencies are both the spear and the shield: the first line of our attack and of our defense. Failure can bear terrible consequences. Congress has two responsibilities: the first is to ensure that our intelligence community is performing its mission effectively, and the second is to ensure that in performing its mission, the intelligence community is not violating the constitutional rights of individual Americans. Yet the ability of Congress to ensure that the intelligence community has sufficient resources and capability of performing its mission has never been more in question. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 created a new institutional landscape littered by new intelligence agencies with ever increasing demands and responsibilities. These new agencies became members of an already populated club of organizations performing intelligence related functions. The intelligence community today consists of 19 different agencies or components: the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Central Intelligence Agency; Department of Defense; Defense Intelligence Agency; National Security Agency; Departments of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force; Department of State; Department of Treasury; Department of Energy; Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation; National Reconnaissance Office; National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency; Coast Guard; Department of Homeland Security, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Congress too has increased its oversight responsibilities. Committees other than the intelligence committees of the House and Senate have jurisdiction over such departments as Homeland Security, State, Defense, Justice, Energy, Treasury, and Commerce. But all of these ``non-intelligence'' committees are restricted in their ability to conduct effective oversight of intelligence function of the agencies under their jurisdiction because, unfortunately, the intelligence community stonewalls the Government Accountability Office (GAO) when committees of jurisdiction request that GAO investigate problems. This is happening despite the clear responsibility of Congress to ensure that these agencies are operating effectively to protect America. It is inconceivable that the GAO--the audit arm of the U.S. Congress--has been unable to conduct evaluations of the CIA for over 40 years. If the GAO had been able to conduct basic auditing functions of the CIA, perhaps some of the problems that were so clearly exposed following the terrorist attacks in September 2001 would have been resolved. And yet, it is extraordinary that five years after 9-11, the same problems persist. Two recent incidents have made this situation disturbingly clear. At a hearing entitled, ``Access Delayed: Fixing the Security Clearance Process, Part II,'' before my Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, on November 9, 2005, GAO was asked about steps it would take to ensure that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget, and the intelligence community met the goals and objectives outlined in the OPM security clearance strategic plan. Fixing the security clearance process, which is on GAO's high-risk list, is essential to our national security. But as GAO observed in a written response to a question raised by Senator Voinovich, ``while we have the authority to do such work, we lack the cooperation we need to get our job done in that area.'' A similar case arose in response to a GAO investigation for the Senate Homeland Security Committee and the House Government Reform Committee on how agencies are sharing terrorism-related and sensitive but unclassified information. The report, entitled ``Information Sharing, the Federal Government Needs to Establish Policies and Processes for Sharing Terrorism-Related and Sensitive but Unclassified Information'' (GAO-06-385), was released in March 2006. At a time when Congress is criticized by members of the 9-11 Commission for failing to implement its recommendations, we should remember that improving terrorism information sharing among agencies was one of the critical recommendations of the Commission. Moreover, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 mandated the sharing of terrorism information through the creation of an Information Sharing Environment. Yet, when asked by GAO for comments on the GAO report, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence refused, stating that ``the review of intelligence activities is beyond GAO's purview.'' A Congressional Research Service memorandum entitled, ``Overview of `Classified' and `Sensitive but Unclassified' Information,'' concludes, ``it appears that pseudo-classification markings have, in some instances, had the effect of deterring information sharing for homeland security.'' Unfortunately I have more examples that predate the post 9-11 reforms. Indeed, in July 2001, in testimony, entitled ``Central Intelligence Agency, Observations on GAO Access to Information on CIA Programs and Activities'' (GAO-01-975T) before the House Committee on Government Reform, the GAO noted, as a practical manner, ``our access is generally limited to obtaining information on threat assessments when the CIA does not perceives [sic] our audits as oversight of its activities.'' The bill I introduce today does not detract from the authority of the intelligence committees. In fact, the language makes explicit that the Comptroller General may conduct an audit or evaluation of intelligence sources and methods or covert actions only upon the request of the intelligence committees or at the request of the congressional majority or minority leaders. The measure also prescribes for the security of the information collected by the Comptroller General. As both House Rule 48 and Senate Resolution 400 establishing the intelligence oversight committees state, ``Nothing in this [charter] shall be construed as amending, limiting, or otherwise changing the authority of any standing committee of the, House/Senate, to obtain full and prompt access to the product of the intelligence activities of any department or agency of the Government relevant to a matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of such committee.'' Despite this clear and unambiguous statement, the ability of non- intelligence committees to obtain information, no matter how vital to improving the security of our nation, has been restricted by the various elements of the intelligence community. My bill reaffirms the authority of the Comptroller General to conduct audits and evaluations--other than those relating to sources and methods, or covert actions--relating to the management and administration of elements of the intelligence community in areas such as strategic planning, financial management, information technology, human capital, knowledge management, information sharing, and change management for other relevant committees of the Congress. As I mentioned earlier in my statement, Congress also has the responsibility of ensuring that unfettered intelligence collection does not trample civil liberties. New technologies and new personal information data bases threaten our individual right to a secure private life, free from unlawful government invasion. We must ensure that private information collected by the intelligence community is not misused and is secure. Intelligence agencies have a legitimate mission to protect the country against potential threats. However, Congress' role is to ensure that their mission remains legitimate. Attached is a detailed description of the legislation that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I am introducing be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``The Intelligence Community Audit Act of 2007,'' with Senator Lautenberg. This legislation reaffirms the authority of the Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit the financial transactions and evaluate the programs and activities of the intelligence community (IC). Our bill is identical to S. 3968, introduced in the last Congress by Senator Lautenberg and myself, and to H.R. 6252, introduced in the House by Representative Bennie Thompson. The need for more effective oversight and accountability of our intelligence community has never been greater. In the war against terrorism, intelligence agencies are both the spear and the shield: the first line of our attack and of our defense. Failure can bear terrible consequences. Congress has two responsibilities: the first is to ensure that our intelligence community is performing its mission effectively, and the second is to ensure that in performing its mission, the intelligence community is not violating the constitutional rights of individual Americans. Yet the ability of Congress to ensure that the intelligence community has sufficient resources and capability of performing its mission has never been more in question. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 created a new institutional landscape littered by new intelligence agencies with ever increasing demands and responsibilities. These new agencies became members of an already populated club of organizations performing intelligence related functions. The intelligence community today consists of 19 different agencies or components: the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Central Intelligence Agency; Department of Defense; Defense Intelligence Agency; National Security Agency; Departments of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force; Department of State; Department of Treasury; Department of Energy; Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation; National Reconnaissance Office; National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency; Coast Guard; Department of Homeland Security, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Congress too has increased its oversight responsibilities. Committees other than the intelligence committees of the House and Senate have jurisdiction over such departments as Homeland Security, State, Defense, Justice, Energy, Treasury, and Commerce. But all of these ``non-intelligence'' committees are restricted in their ability to conduct effective oversight of intelligence function of the agencies under their jurisdiction because, unfortunately, the intelligence community stonewalls the Government Accountability Office (GAO) when committees of jurisdiction request that GAO investigate problems. This is happening despite the clear responsibility of Congress to ensure that these agencies are operating effectively to protect America. It is inconceivable that the GAO--the audit arm of the U.S. Congress--has been unable to conduct evaluations of the CIA for over 40 years. If the GAO had been able to conduct basic auditing functions of the CIA, perhaps some of the problems that were so clearly exposed following the terrorist attacks in September 2001 would have been resolved. And yet, it is extraordinary that five years after 9-11, the same problems persist. Two recent incidents have made this situation disturbingly clear. At a hearing entitled, ``Access Delayed: Fixing the Security Clearance Process, Part II,'' before my Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, on November 9, 2005, GAO was asked about steps it would take to ensure that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget, and the intelligence community met the goals and objectives outlined in the OPM security clearance strategic plan. Fixing the security clearance process, which is on GAO's high-risk list, is essential to our national security. But as GAO observed in a written response to a question raised by Senator Voinovich, ``while we have the authority to do such work, we lack the cooperation we need to get our job done in that area.'' A similar case arose in response to a GAO investigation for the Senate Homeland Security Committee and the House Government Reform Committee on how agencies are sharing terrorism-related and sensitive but unclassified information. The report, entitled ``Information Sharing, the Federal Government Needs to Establish Policies and Processes for Sharing Terrorism-Related and Sensitive but Unclassified Information'' (GAO-06-385), was released in March 2006. At a time when Congress is criticized by members of the 9-11 Commission for failing to implement its recommendations, we should remember that improving terrorism information sharing among agencies was one of the critical recommendations of the Commission. Moreover, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 mandated the sharing of terrorism information through the creation of an Information Sharing Environment. Yet, when asked by GAO for comments on the GAO report, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence refused, stating that ``the review of intelligence activities is beyond GAO's purview.'' A Congressional Research Service memorandum entitled, ``Overview of `Classified' and `Sensitive but Unclassified' Information,'' concludes, ``it appears that pseudo-classification markings have, in some instances, had the effect of deterring information sharing for homeland security.'' Unfortunately I have more examples that predate the post 9-11 reforms. Indeed, in July 2001, in testimony, entitled ``Central Intelligence Agency, Observations on GAO Access to Information on CIA Programs and Activities'' (GAO-01-975T) before the House Committee on Government Reform, the GAO noted, as a practical manner, ``our access is generally limited to obtaining information on threat assessments when the CIA does not perceives [sic] our audits as oversight of its activities.'' The bill I introduce today does not detract from the authority of the intelligence committees. In fact, the language makes explicit that the Comptroller General may conduct an audit or evaluation of intelligence sources and methods or covert actions only upon the request of the intelligence committees or at the request of the congressional majority or minority leaders. The measure also prescribes for the security of the information collected by the Comptroller General. As both House Rule 48 and Senate Resolution 400 establishing the intelligence oversight committees state, ``Nothing in this [charter] shall be construed as amending, limiting, or otherwise changing the authority of any standing committee of the, House/Senate, to obtain full and prompt access to the product of the intelligence activities of any department or agency of the Government relevant to a matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of such committee.'' Despite this clear and unambiguous statement, the ability of non- intelligence committees to obtain information, no matter how vital to improving the security of our nation, has been restricted by the various elements of the intelligence community. My bill reaffirms the authority of the Comptroller General to conduct audits and evaluations--other than those relating to sources and methods, or covert actions--relating to the management and administration of elements of the intelligence community in areas such as strategic planning, financial management, information technology, human capital, knowledge management, information sharing, and change management for other relevant committees of the Congress. As I mentioned earlier in my statement, Congress also has the responsibility of ensuring that unfettered intelligence collection does not trample civil liberties. New technologies and new personal information data bases threaten our individual right to a secure private life, free from unlawful government invasion. We must ensure that private information collected by the intelligence community is not misused and is secure. Intelligence agencies have a legitimate mission to protect the country against potential threats. However, Congress' role is to ensure that their mission remains legitimate. Attached is a detailed description of the legislation that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I am introducing be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge my colleagues to support our veterans, current servicemembers, and their families by supporting S. 3421, an omnibus veterans measure entitled Veterans Benefits, Healthcare, and Information Technology Act of 2006. This measure is a compromise agreement between the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and is based on several pieces of legislation. Like all compromises, no one got all he or she wanted, but in the end, I believe that it represents a good package of provisions. This legislation would improve and expand a wide variety of services to our veterans, and includes provisions relating to veterans benefits, health care, and information technology matters for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of particular importance are provisions to enhance mental health and readjustment services for veterans returning to civilian life, to improve long-term care services for aging veterans, and to modify the State veterans' home program. At the outset, I note my dissatisfaction with the undue haste with which the legislative package, the bill itself and the accompanying explanatory statement that my colleague, the committee chairman, Senator Craig, will include at the end of his remarks, was assembled. Because of the way this legislation was negotiated, we were not able to reach final agreement on its contents until Wednesday morning, just two days ago. At that time, the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for the first time agreed to negotiate on a particular provision passed by the House relating to a construction project in South Carolina. As a consequence of his belated agreement to enter into discussions, we were able to arrive at a compromise, a result that we could have achieved in September. Because the final agreement was reached so late in the session, staff of the two committees and from the two Offices of Legislative Counsel, worked many long hours trying to accomplish the nearly impossible task of assembling the bill, which is over 160 pages, and then drafting an explanatory statement on the legislation. In the best of times, such a process can easily take a week or more. We were forced to try to do it all in just 2 days. It is near certainty that this haste has led to the inclusion of errors in both the legislation and the explanatory statement, errors which could have been caught and remedied had there been sufficient time. This is certainly no way to do our business and, to the extent it will be in our power, we will not legislate this way in the future. That said, the bill is now before the Senate, and I will touch on some of the key provisions. The Department of Veterans Affairs has been tasked with meeting the needs of those who serve in the military, with a particular emphasis on those injured during their service. A number of provisions in the compromise agreement are intended to help VA fulfill that obligation. Often, the types of injuries endured in combat are invisible in nature. We must make sure that returning servicemembers receive the readjustment and mental health care services they need for a seamless reintegration to civilian life. Provisions in the compromise agreement seek to do just that by establishing VA systemwide guidelines for screening primary care patients for potential mental health issues, as well as appropriately training clinicians to carry out mental health consultations. Identifying the need for assistance is the first step; this measure also provides for the next step by ensuring that VA has the capacity to furnish mental health services at every VA community- based outpatient clinic. Because veterans often seek readjustment counseling and other mental health care in their own communities, it is imperative that VA's veterans centers are able to provide needed services. The compromise agreement contains provisions, derived from S. 716, legislation I introduced which cleared the Senate nearly a year ago, which would authorize resources needed by veterans centers to carry out their long standing mission of helping veterans. These provisions would also help ensure that VA has sufficiently trained outreach workers to encourage veterans to seek assistance. Veterans centers provide veterans with a safe place to turn for readjustment counseling or assistance; they make over 100,000 referrals a year for benefits and VA medical services. In addition to providing counseling services to veterans, family members too can find solace at veterans centers. This legislation would clarify that parents of those servicemembers who have died would be eligible to receive bereavement counseling at veterans centers. The compromise agreement also addresses the goal of encouraging and supporting alternatives to institutional long-term care. It includes provisions derived from S. 2753, a bill I introduced, that was designed to promote assistance to those who look after veterans, especially in noninstitutional, home-based settings. The relevant provision in the compromise agreement would authorize VA to carry out a pilot program to assist family members who care for their disabled loved ones. Caregivers, particularly those who live in rural and geographically remote areas, would receive a helping hand through services such as adult day care and respite care. Furthermore, the compromise agreement seeks to ensure more appropriate payment for the cost of long-term care provided to certain seriously disabled veterans who are receiving care in State veterans' homes. In January 2006, the committee held field hearings in my home State of Hawaii. Tom Driskill, the president and CEO of Hawaii Health Systems Corporation, testified about the soon-to-be-built State home in Hilo. He said, ``The synergy of a combined Federal and State funding of the home has been the catalyst for making this dream a reality.'' The adjustments this legislation would make to the current cost-sharing arrangement between VA and the States, which are derived from S. 2762, legislation I introduced, will help ensure high quality care in State homes not only in Hawaii, but across the entire Nation. Currently, care is provided at no cost to the veteran when VA provides institutional, long-term care services to those with service- connected disabilities rated 70 percent or higher in a VA nursing home or a private nursing care facility with which VA contracts. However, when the care is provided in a State veterans' home, VA pays only a per diem to the State, which then may bill the veteran for the remaining costs. This measure would provide for the same payment to State veterans' homes that is provided to community nursing homes. This compromise agreement also includes a provision from a bill I introduced, S. 1537, that would authorize VA to designate at least two Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence and six Parkinson's Disease Research, Education and Clinical Centers. VA centers of excellence have been the model of innovation in the delivery of highly specialized health care and research for chronic disease in the veteran population. Providing a statutory basis for these centers will ensure continued research and development of progressive treatments to help reduce symptoms and improve the quality of life for veterans battling with these neurological diseases. This provision is especially significant as it will be part of Congressman Lane Evans' legislative legacy, as ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It is fitting that we pay tribute to his service through this measure. I thank my good friend and colleague for his leadership on this issue and for his service to our great Nation, as a marine and in Congress. The compromise agreement includes a provision that would allow VA to extend its State Cemetery Grants Program to tribal organizations. This change, derived from my bill, S. 2659, would allow for the establishment, expansion, and improvement of veterans cemeteries on trust lands. If enacted, it will enable veterans living on trust lands to have an option for burial much closer to their family members and other loved ones. Another provision in the compromise would authorize VA to provide home loan guarantees to veterans who want to use their home loan eligibility to purchase stock in a cooperative housing corporation. Under current law, VA is authorized to guarantee loans for eligible veterans and their survivors to build or buy a home, including residential condominiums. In many large cities, housing cooperatives make up a large percentage of available affordable housing. This provision, derived originally from legislation introduced by Senator Schumer, would give veterans greater housing choice by allowing them to use their hard-earned benefits to buy shares in a housing cooperative. In response to the concerns of some individuals, the provisions in the compromise agreement related to allowing veterans and other claimants to hire attorneys to represent them before VA have been modified from what originally passed the Senate earlier this year, so as to allow individuals to hire attorneys only after a notice of disagreement has been filed in a case. This change should result in there being no impact on the claims adjudication system until after VA renders its first final decision. Currently, veterans are prohibited from retaining counsel until after the Board of Veterans' Appeals renders a final decision. Additionally, I am pleased that we were able to reach a compromise on information security matters. I remain committed to ensuring that VA takes aggressive action to protect our veterans' personal information, and in the event of a data breach, that they provide the affected veterans with appropriate identity and credit protection services. I also express my satisfaction at our success in maintaining the provisions in current law which prohibit the use of appropriated VA health care funds for conducting public and private cost comparison studies. This prohibition protects veterans by precluding the use of scarce health care dollars for other purposes and protects VA employees from efforts to privatize their duties. This legislation is appropriate and needed at a time when our service-members are in harm's way. We must always remember the sacrifices that our servicemembers, both past and present, have made on behalf of this great Nation, and we must do our part to respond to their service by remaining strong in our support of veterans services. I am proud that our committee continues its tradition of bipartisanship. The effort that produced the final version of this legislation, vital to the continued provision of quality health care and benefits to our Nation's veterans, is just the latest example of that spirit. I thank Senator Craig for his leadership and for his cooperation and assistance. I also thank the staff of the majority, especially Bill Cahill, Jon Towers, Amanda Meredith, Helen Walker, and Lupe Wissel, as well as those on the Democratic staff, Kim Lipsky, Alexandra Sardegna, Dahlia Melendrez, Ted Pusey, Michelle Moreno, and Bill Brew for their hard work on this legislation. At this time, Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to wish my warmest aloha to Senator Jim Jeffords, who is retiring after 32 years in Congress. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs will be losing one of its finest and most esteemed members. A veteran himself, Senator Jeffords has been a strong voice and advocate for veterans. I thank Senator Jeffords for his service. He will truly be missed. I urge my colleagues to support this compromise agreement on behalf of America's veterans and their families.