Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr President, I rise today in honor of the Army's 231st birthday. For over two centuries, the Army has served this Nation with honesty, courage, and dignity, and it is my privilege to take this opportunity to commemorate its birth. Both in times of peace, and in times of war, the U.S. Army has been poised and ready to answer the call of duty to defend our Nation. All of our Army units--Active, Guard and Reserve--share the heritage of the first Continental Army which fought so valiantly for the principles of justice, freedom and democracy. The commitment and duty of the Army soldiers who have risked their lives to preserve our freedom have left an indelible mark on this nation. During the Army's 231 year history, tens of thousands of these brave men and women have sacrificed their lives on distant battlefields to keep our nation safe. I salute them for their service to this country. I also pay tribute to the families of those soldiers who risk their lives for our Nation. Too often the important role that families play goes unacknowledged but their faith and devotion are vital to the Army's success. The families of our soldiers have my deepest appreciation for the sacrifices they make and for the support the give our troops. As this Nation continues to fight in the global war on terror, the Army has been key to providing the Joint force the capabilities it needs to persist in its struggle for liberty and democracy. Through the efforts of the U.S. Army the world has been made a more secure, prosperous, and better place for all of mankind. As I witnessed, firsthand, during my recent trip to Iraq, the men and women serving in the Army who so courageously defend our Nation represent the best of what our country has to offer and have my deepest respect. Thank you for your selfless service. It is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing the Data Theft Prevention Act of 2006 in response to concerns that arose following the recent theft of computer equipment from the home of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee in early May. I would like to thank my friends Senator Schumer, Senator Murray, and Senator Clinton for being original cosponsors of this legislation. The stolen equipment contained personal information on as many as 26.5 million veterans, Active Duty, National Guard and Reserve personnel. These files had been downloaded from VA databases over a period of 3 years by the employee without any authorization, then taken out of VA and placed on personal computer equipment at the employee's home. I am sure my colleagues will be as alarmed as I was when I tell them that this unauthorized removal of the personal information from the Department of Veterans Affairs was not an illegal act. In fact, I was told by VA's inspector general that the employee's only misdeed was of a recently established VA Security Guideline, which only carries the weight of suggested employee behavior. Despite VA's efforts to provide cyber security for the myriad of databases the Department controls, at the time of the theft there was no policy or law in place to prevent or deter an unauthorized act. The legislation I am introducing today would establish Federal penalties for anyone, whether a government employee or government contractor, who knowingly and without authorization views, uses, downloads, or removes any means of identification or individually identifiable health information that is in a Federal database. Although the incident which triggered my present concerns occurred in VA, this legislation would apply to all Federal departments and agencies. The legislation would also penalize those who would use any such personal information for criminal purposes. This legislation is intended to compliment existing Federal personal information security policies and to emphasize the need for all Federal departments and agencies to review existing policies and clearly lay out who is and isn't authorized to use, view, or download personal information. This legislation would send the clear message that anyone who knowingly and without authorization removes personal or health information from a Federal database does so at their own risk. VA Secretary Nicholson testified last week before the House Government Reform Committee that he thought that there should be consideration of ``putting some kind of teeth in an enforcement mechanism for the compromising and careless and negligent handling of personal information.'' This measure would do just that. If enacted, violation of the provisions of this law could result in a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment for 1 year, or both. These penalties are similar to those which currently apply to Internal Revenue Service employees who are responsible for breaches of tax information. Given the potential impact to our veterans, Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel through identity theft and the incredible disruption and costs incurred by the government from the theft of the VA data, it is vital that we take steps to deter any future incidents and hold accountable those who are responsible. I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation and to work with me for its prompt enactment. We must do all we can to prevent any further compromise of personal data in the hands of the government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be published in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing the Data Theft Prevention Act of 2006 in response to concerns that arose following the recent theft of computer equipment from the home of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee in early May. I would like to thank my friends Senator Schumer, Senator Murray, and Senator Clinton for being original cosponsors of this legislation. The stolen equipment contained personal information on as many as 26.5 million veterans, Active Duty, National Guard and Reserve personnel. These files had been downloaded from VA databases over a period of 3 years by the employee without any authorization, then taken out of VA and placed on personal computer equipment at the employee's home. I am sure my colleagues will be as alarmed as I was when I tell them that this unauthorized removal of the personal information from the Department of Veterans Affairs was not an illegal act. In fact, I was told by VA's inspector general that the employee's only misdeed was of a recently established VA Security Guideline, which only carries the weight of suggested employee behavior. Despite VA's efforts to provide cyber security for the myriad of databases the Department controls, at the time of the theft there was no policy or law in place to prevent or deter an unauthorized act. The legislation I am introducing today would establish Federal penalties for anyone, whether a government employee or government contractor, who knowingly and without authorization views, uses, downloads, or removes any means of identification or individually identifiable health information that is in a Federal database. Although the incident which triggered my present concerns occurred in VA, this legislation would apply to all Federal departments and agencies. The legislation would also penalize those who would use any such personal information for criminal purposes. This legislation is intended to compliment existing Federal personal information security policies and to emphasize the need for all Federal departments and agencies to review existing policies and clearly lay out who is and isn't authorized to use, view, or download personal information. This legislation would send the clear message that anyone who knowingly and without authorization removes personal or health information from a Federal database does so at their own risk. VA Secretary Nicholson testified last week before the House Government Reform Committee that he thought that there should be consideration of ``putting some kind of teeth in an enforcement mechanism for the compromising and careless and negligent handling of personal information.'' This measure would do just that. If enacted, violation of the provisions of this law could result in a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment for 1 year, or both. These penalties are similar to those which currently apply to Internal Revenue Service employees who are responsible for breaches of tax information. Given the potential impact to our veterans, Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel through identity theft and the incredible disruption and costs incurred by the government from the theft of the VA data, it is vital that we take steps to deter any future incidents and hold accountable those who are responsible. I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation and to work with me for its prompt enactment. We must do all we can to prevent any further compromise of personal data in the hands of the government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be published in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, before I begin talking about the legislation before us today, I would like to thank Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin who have continued their tradition of strong bipartisan leadership of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In particular, I want to commend my dear friend and colleague, Senator John Warner, for his service to this distinguished committee. As chair, he has been a true statesman and shown how Congress should work. He understands the issues that come before this committee are ones that should not be caught in party bickering. It has truly been an honor to work with him to ensure that our men and women in the armed services have the tools necessary to successfully meet the challenges of today and into the future. While this will be the last Defense Authorization bill that he will oversee as the chairman of the committee, it surely will not be the last one where his expertise will be felt. Again, I thank him and look forward to working with him in the future on issues before this committee. This bill exemplifies what can be achieved through the spirit of bipartisan cooperation to address a number of important defense priorities. For example, this bill makes sure the Department of Defense has the resources it needs to combat terrorism by authorizing an additional $115.2 million over the President's budget request. And it includes a number of provisions designed to protect the quality of life of our service members. But I have several concerns related to this bill. First and foremost, I am concerned that the administration continues to fund this war through emergency supplemental appropriations. While I support our soldiers currently serving overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan and I am pleased that this committee has authorized an additional $81.9 billion for ongoing operations, I believe that the administration's current policy is fiscally irresponsible. Unlike true national emergencies and natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, the funds required for these ongoing operations can be assessed, identified and included in the regular budget process. It is time for this administration to make the true cost of war transparent to both the Congress and the American public. Just today, I returned from Iraq where I had an opportunity to meet and speak with our brave men and women in the Armed Forces in Iraq. They are truly doing an excellent job in a difficult and often dangerous environment. Thanks to the efforts of our soldiers, the people of Iraq are better equipped to begin the task of self- governance. During this trip, I spoke to the new Iraqi Minister of Defense and Iraq's National Security Advisor who are both optimistic about Iraq's progress toward democracy. I, myself, witnessed the advances made by the Iraqi people who are building a strong democratic foundation for the future of their nation. However, more needs to be done. While I do not believe that we should leave before the Iraqi people are equipped with the tools necessary to support a stable democratic society, we must ensure that the progress already started with the recent election of the Iraqi Minister of Defense and the Minister of Interior continues. At the same time, whether we leave Iraq tomorrow, or in 6 months, or longer, it is important for the President to inform Congress and the American people as to when and how our troops will be coming home. I am also disappointed that this year's authorization bill reduced the amount of funding for corrosion prevention and control programs. Corrosion is a costly problem. In fact, it is one of the largest costs in the life cycle of weapons systems. In addition, corrosion reduces military readiness as the need to repair or replace corrosion damage increases the downtime of critical military assets. Consequently, I firmly believe that cohesive corrosion control programs are integral to maintaining military readiness. This critical maintenance activity increases the life of multimillion dollar weapons systems and ensures their availability during times of crisis. Effective corrosion control should be made a key component of the Department of Defense's resetting strategy and funds should be allocated accordingly. Despite these concerns, I feel that this year's authorization includes a number of significant provisions that will greatly benefit our military personnel. I am particularly pleased to see provisions that address issues related to the quality of life of military members and their families. I believe that it is our responsibility, as Government leaders, to guarantee that our men and women in uniform are appropriately compensated. Consequently, I support the committee's approval of a 2.2 percent pay raise for all military personnel and targeted pay raises for mid-career and senior enlisted personnel and warrant officers. I am also encouraged that the committee prohibited increases in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees in fiscal year 2007 and authorized $10 million for pilot projects related to the treatment of post traumatic stress disorder. In addition, I am glad to see a number of provisions that directly benefit the children of our Nation's soldiers such as the authorized $45 million in supplemental education aid to local school districts that are affected by a large increase of students due to base realignments or the activation of new military units. I also support a 3-year pilot education program on parent education to promote early childhood education for military children who have been affected by their parent's deployment or relocation. As the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee, my colleagues and I included a number of provisions in the bill that are vital to the near-term readiness of our Armed Forces. Most notably, this bill includes several provisions designed to address problems related to the DOD's acquisitions policies. One key provision would give DOD program managers more authority while at the same time holding them accountable for results--a best practice currently employed in the private sector. A provision requiring DOD officials to certify that the cost estimate for programs are reasonable and funding is available prior to initiating a major defense acquisition program was included as well. This bill also makes provisions that address DOD contracting policies and practices. For example, the DOD would be required to track and report cost overruns and schedule delays on major information technology purchases. I am also encouraged by our ability to provide support for programs and projects funded through the operation and maintenance account which directly impact the readiness of our troops. These include an additional $52.9 million for force protection, including combat clothing and field medical equipment and $97.3 million for training resources. In addition, the Readiness Subcommittee included an increase of $400 million for critical military construction projects that were identified by military installation commanders as top priorities. I am pleased that the bill also contains my legislation to establish a National Language Council to develop a long-term and comprehensive language strategy and oversee the implementation of that strategy. In 2004 the Department of Defense hosted a conference on foreign language education and the development of such a council and strategy was the number one recommendation of those in attendance--including administration officials. Without a comprehensive strategy addressing all of our language needs, combined with a real investment in language education, the strength and security of the United States remains at risk. It is imperative that our education system produce individuals in a broad spectrum of occupations who are able to effectively communicate and understand the cultures of the people with whom they interact. This includes scientists, lawyers, doctors, and educators, in addition to diplomats, law enforcement officers, and intelligence analysts. Moreover, I believe that we must focus on more than just the languages deemed ``critical'' today. Rather, we should learn all languages in order to develop long-term relationships with people all across the world. To do this, we need a cross-cutting and comprehensive plan that states where we are today, where we want to be, and how we are going to get there. My legislation that establishes a National Language Council goes a long way toward providing a national language strategy that reflects the views of all stakeholders--academia, industry, language associations, heritage communities, and governments at all levels-- because this is an issue that impacts every segment of society and is too big for only one sector to handle. I believe that the Senate Armed Services Committee has created a bill that will provide the necessary funds required to support our servicemen and women and that allows the military to continue to meet our Nation's future defense needs. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to vote with me to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. I begin by expressing my deep appreciation to the cosponsors of this legislation and to the Senators who spoke in support of bringing this bill forward for debate. I especially thank the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, and the ranking member of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Dorgan, for their support. I also thank the Senators from Alaska who shared their experiences encountered 35 years ago when Alaska Natives sought to address similar issues when Congress enacted the Alaska Natives Claims Settlement Act. It is ironic that the same arguments used against that bill, which has been incredibly successful and has served to unite rather than divide the people of Alaska, are being used against our efforts today to bring parity in Federal policies to Hawaii's indigenous peoples. Beginning with the debates of the Continental Congress and continuing in the records of discussion and correspondence amongst the Framers of the Constitution, it was recognized that the aboriginal indigenous people who occupied the lands now comprising the United States had a status as sovereigns that existed prior to the formation of the United States. Based upon the recognition of that preexisting sovereignty, the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 3, vests the Congress with authority to regulate commerce just as with foreign nations in numerous rulings of the last 215 years. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that legislation enacted to address the special concerns and conditions of the native people of the United States is constitutional and does not constitute discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity because the sovereign status of the Indian tribes is a basis for the government-to-government relationship that tribes have with the United States. The court has consistently drawn a distinction between legislation that addresses the conditions of native people of the United States and legislation that addresses conditions of specific groups whose members are defined only by reference to their race or ethnicity. According to the court decisions, the United States has a political and legal relationship with Indian tribes that is not predicated on race or ethnicity but, rather, on sovereignty. The status that the Constitution recognizes in Indian tribes was later extended to Alaska Natives in their capacity as aboriginal indigenous people of the United States, and it is on that same basis that the Congress has enacted legislation for aboriginal indigenous people of Hawaii. I know the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, is going to address this more when he speaks, but I want to comment on a disturbing conclusion that was made by some of my colleagues yesterday. Somehow efforts to recognize Native Hawaiians are perceived as un- American. Native Hawaiians are proud--proud--to be Americans. A number of Native Hawaiians in the Hawaiian National Guard returned from Operation Iraqi Freedom this spring, after having spent 18 months away from their families. Some of our most celebrated heroes who have died in the war have been Native Hawaiians. It is offensive to me as a veteran and as a Native Hawaiian that my efforts to ensure justice and parity for Hawaii's indigenous peoples are being characterized as un- American. I beg to differ. A federally recognized native government does not cause an indigenous person to lose his or her status as an American citizen. The concepts are not mutually exclusive. I remind my colleagues of the 556 native governments that have federally recognized government-to-government relationships with the United States. I don't see anyone characterizing our Native American brethren as being un-American. To do so in this case is another injustice to indigenous peoples, not only from Hawaii but from our great Nation. The Senator from Tennessee, a good friend whom I admire, argued yesterday that this bill is about sovereignty. I agree, it is about sovereignty within the bounds of existing Federal law. The political and legal relationships between Native Hawaiians and the United States already exist, as evidenced by the 160 Federal statutes that have been enacted to address conditions of Native Hawaiians. The Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination allows for a government-to-government relationship between indigenous peoples. This is not new. It exists right now between the United States and 556 native governments. The continued representation of this bill as unprecedented new action is just plain wrong. Native Hawaiians are the indigenous aboriginal people of the lands which now comprise the State of Hawaii. Prior to their overthrow, the native government, the Kingdom of Hawaii, was recognized by the United States. The fact that the kingdom included non-natives within its government does not make it a non-native government. It is clear that the Kingdom of Hawaii was a preexisting native Government. Hawaii is the homeland for Native Hawaiians. That is what makes them different from other ethnic groups. That is what makes them like the 556 native governments that are federally recognized and engaged in a government-to-government relationship with the United States. This bill embodies the goals of this Nation--fairness, justice, liberty for all. A federally recognized government-to-government relationship with the United States does not make Native Hawaiians un- American. Being Native Hawaiian and American are not mutually exclusive, no more than being an American Indian or Alaska Native and being American. Mr. President, 556 native governments enjoy this relationship. The question is: Why not Native Hawaiians? The only argument I am hearing is that Native Hawaiians are not native enough, and I beg to differ. This is why the bill needs to be brought to the floor for debate. This is why my colleagues should vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. At a minimum, it is what the people of Hawaii deserve. My colleagues have said that Hawaii is a melting pot, perhaps the greatest melting pot in the United States, and I agree. However, I like to think of it not as a melting pot where everyone loses their individuality, but I would like to think of it as a rainbow. Each color of the rainbow represents a different culture. The more we are in touch with our culture and tradition, the brighter and more vivid is the color. Taken together, we combine to make something very beautiful. My colleagues, however, would rather everyone be melded into one color, monotone. I believe we are intelligent, articulate beings who are able to celebrate our nationality in addition to preserving, understanding, and practicing our culture and traditions. One of my colleagues referred to statehood and its supposed agreement that Native Hawaiians would not be treated any differently from any other citizens. Debate transcripts from the Constitutional Convention of 1950, which developed the Constitution that was used in 1959 when Hawaii became a State, clearly show an effort to protect Native Hawaiians and their culture. The 1950 Constitutional Convention adopted as a provision the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, passed by the Congress in 1921, which established a homesteading program for Native Hawaiians in an attempt to offset the tremendous decline in their numbers and to ensure continuation of their culture. The Convention also adopted a provision accepting a compact with the Federal Government to continue the trust obligation associated with the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and providing that congressional consent would be required for an amendment to decrease lessee benefits or alter lessee qualifications. Inclusion in the Constitution as early as 1950 shows recognition of Native Hawaiians as Hawaii's indigenous peoples and reflects the widespread support for the preservation of Native Hawaiian culture, custom, and tradition. Unlike many of the other Western States' enabling laws, the Hawaii Admissions Act and the Alaska Statehood Act expressly recognized and preserved the rights of the indigenous native people in those two States. The Hawaii Admissions Act not only provides for the protection of land set aside under Federal law for Native Hawaiians but further directs that revenues from lands ceded back to the State are to be used for five purposes, one of which is the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians. I would also like to address the report issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established to serve as an independent and bipartisan factfinding agency to investigate and report on the status of civil rights in our country. The GAO just issued a report highlighting the Commission's lack of policies to ensure that its national products--its briefings, reports, and hearings--are objective and that the Commission is sufficiently accountable for decisions made on these projects. Take this issue, for example. In January, the Commission determined it would hold a briefing on this legislation we are considering. The Commission failed--the Commission failed--to consult with the Hawaii State advisory committee, which is composed of experts on civil rights in Hawaii. This is not a new issue. In fact, the Hawaii State advisory committee has previously issued three reports addressing the political and legal relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. The Hawaii State advisory committee members tried to participate in the process, and their efforts were rebuffed. This was not a case of being overlooked; this was a case of being shut out by that Commission. The Commission was provided with a substitute amendment that we negotiated with the executive branch in January by my staff. In addition, provisions of the amendment were discussed during that briefing. Yet in May of this year, when the Commission voted to issue its report, it based its decision on the bill as reported out of committee, not the bill we will actually be debating and voting upon. In addition, the Commission's report has no analysis, no findings in it. The report is a summary of testimony made by witnesses and a conclusion that the legislation is race-based--again, no analysis, no findings. Further, upon reviewing the transcript, it is clear to me that the majority of the Commissioners were not familiar with Hawaii's history, with Federal Indian law, or with the legislation itself at the briefing. Again, this is where the expertise of the Hawaii State advisory committee to the Commission would have been helpful, yet their efforts were rebuffed. The two Commissioners who dissented read the bill. They read the bill. That was obvious in their dissents which actually analyze the bill and Hawaii's history. I question such actions, as they leave me with little doubt that there are those who used this process for political reasons--to the detriment of Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the people of Hawaii. My conclusion is supported by the recent GAO report criticizing the Commission as lacking policies to ensure objectivity in its hearings and briefings and accountability in its conclusion. And they have issued that report. In addition, on June 6, a Resolution of No Confidence was adopted by current and former State advisory committee chairpersons regarding the Commission's commitment to fulfilling statutory and regulatory obligations to the State advisory committees. This saddens me greatly, as many of us have tremendous respect for the Commission. And I repeat, we have tremendous respect for the Commission, but that respect is based on our reliance on the Commission as an independent, bipartisan, factfinding agency. There was little independence, bipartisanship, or factfinding in the Commission's consideration of this legislation. That an agency with such an important mission would succumb to a political agenda is disgraceful and offensive. Last night, the Department of Justice issued a letter expressing opposition to S. 147. This is understandable and, of course, not surprising. The administration voiced these concerns last July. That prompted 3 months of negotiations with Hawaii's congressional delegation and Governor with the Department of Justice, Office of Management and Budget, and the White House officials. The result of those negotiations is S. 3064, which the majority leader put on the calendar this week. If the Senate invokes cloture on S. 147, the language of S. 3064 will be offered as a substitute. That language, agreed to with the administration, addresses the administration's policy concerns with the original bill. The administration's letter of last July noted constitutional concerns with the legislation. As the floor debate yesterday demonstrated, disagreement over those constitutional questions exists and, if the legislation is enacted, would rightfully be left to the courts to decide. The substitute amendment addresses liability of the United States, ensures that military readiness is preserved, prohibits gaming, and ensures that civil and criminal jurisdiction remains with the State and Federal Governments until negotiated. I ask my colleagues who have only had the time to listen to characterizations of the bill and sound bites of perceived impacts to actually take a look at this bill. It is not often that we can get almost every policymaker in Hawaii to agree on an issue. Except for two people in the State legislature, every other policymaker in Hawaii supports authorizing a process for the reorganization and recognition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a government- to-government relationship. We are the people who deal with this every day. I ask you, at a minimum, to give us an opportunity to share more information about this with you. Don't make your decision based on someone else's characterization of the bill if you have not taken the time to read it and understand it. The people of Hawaii--native and nonnative--deserve more than that. I stand here and ask my colleagues to vote for cloture so that we can further address these matters. I ask all of you to give us the courtesy of at least a debate on this bill. I have heard the opposition, and again I say that we have had good relationships which will continue, and I want to voice the reasons we need this bill because as we pledge daily, under God, with liberty and justice, we do this. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for her support. I yield whatever time is left to the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he needs to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I just want to mention on the sovereignty rebuttal, the Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination allows for a government-to-government relationship between indigenous people. This is not new. It exists right now between the United States and 556 tribes, 556 native governments. The continued representation of this bill as an unprecedented new action is just plain wrong. With all due respect to my colleagues, as I said earlier, Native Hawaiians are proud to be Americans. Native Hawaiians, however, are indigenous peoples and Congress has the authority to recognize indigenous peoples. I yield.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator desires from our side.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, before I yield time to the Senator from Alaska, I would like to say a word about secession. This bill in no way allows the State of Hawaii to secede from the United States. To reiterate my prior statement, I support addressing the legal and political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States within Federal law. I do not support independence. I do not support secession of the State of Hawaii from the United States. This bill extends the Federal policy of self-governance and self- determination to Hawaii's indigenous peoples, thereby providing parity in Federal policies toward American Indians, Alaska natives, and native Hawaiians. The bill focuses solely on the relationship between the United States and Native Hawaiians within the context of Federal law. None of the numerous federally recognized tribes have been accused of seeking to cause their State to secede from the Union because of their legal and political relationship with the United States. Such claims are false and meant to instill fear in those who are unfamiliar with the nature of government-to-government relations between tribal entities and the United States. Given Hawaii's history, I have a small group of constituents who advocate for independence. Why? Because there hasn't been a structured process to deal with the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow. The absence of a process to resolve the issue has led to frustration and desperation. My bill provides a structured process to begin to address these longstanding issues. Contrary to the claim of divisiveness, my bill goes a long way to preserve the unity of the people of Hawaii. I yield time from our side to Senator Murkowski of Alaska.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I discuss legislation that is critically important to the people of Hawaii, all the people of Hawaii, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. While I am pleased to see this bill finally come to the Senate floor after 6 long years, I remain perplexed by the constant barrage of misinformation that has been provided by opponents to this legislation. Tomorrow we will be voting on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. I ask all of my colleagues, to let this bill come to the floor for a debate--whether you are for or against it. At the minimum, we should be allowed to discuss what this bill is really about. I also want to alert my colleagues to the fact that a new substitute amendment has been drafted which incorporates legislative language negotiated between Senator Inouye and myself and officials from the Executive Branch to address policy concerns 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. While I realize that we will not consider the substitute amendment until we get to the actual consideration of the bill, I share this with my colleagues so that they know that our negotiations with the administration have been successful in addressing their concerns and adhering to the intent and purpose of this bill. This bill is about process and fairness. Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians, have been recognized as indigenous peoples by Congress through the one hundred sixty-plus statutes we have enacted for Native Hawaiians. Congress has historically treated Native Hawaiians, for more than a hundred years, in a manner similar to American Indians and Alaska Natives. What our bill does is to authorize a process so that the federal policy of self- governance and self-determination, a policy formally extended to American Indians and Alaska Natives, can be extended to Native Hawaiians, thereby creating parity in the way the United States treats its indigenous peoples. We have bipartisan support for the enactment of this bill. I extend my deep appreciation to the cosponsors of this legislation, Senators Cantwell, Coleman, Dodd, Dorgan, Graham, Inouye, Murkowski, Smith, and Stevens, for their unwavering support of our efforts. I especially want to recognize Hawaii's Governor, Linda Lingle, who serves as the first Republican governor in Hawaii in 40 years. Despite our political differences, Governor Lingle and her cabinet, primarily Attorney General Mark Bennett and Hawaiian Homes Commission Chairman Micah Kane, have worked tirelessly with us for the past 4 years in an effort to enact this bill for the people of Hawaii. In Hawaii, support for the preservation and culture of Hawaii's indigenous peoples is a nonpartisan issue. In Hawaii, diversity is precious. The more we understand our culture, traditions, and heritage, the more we can contribute to the fabric of society that has become the local culture in Hawaii. While my opponents see diversity as a threat, the people of Hawaii embrace diversity and celebrate it as a means of understanding the foundations upon which our local culture, the culture that brings us all together, is based. Let me be the first to say that the people of Hawaii, including Hawaii's indigenous peoples, are proud to be Americans. The many Native Hawaiians in the National Guard who were away from their families for eighteen months, serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, are proud to be American. In fact, it is a well-documented fact that native peoples have the highest per capita rate of serving in our military to defend our country. It is absolutely offensive to read opponents' mischaracterization of this bill as an effort to secede from the United States or to question the right of Hawaii's indigenous peoples to have a mechanism of self-governance and self-determination within the framework of Federal law. This bill is of significant importance to the people of Hawaii. It is significant because it provides a process, a structured process, for the people of Hawaii to finally address longstanding issues resulting from a dark period in Hawaii's history, the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The people of Hawaii are multicultural and we celebrate our diversity. At the same time, we all share a common respect and desire to preserve the culture and tradition of Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians. Despite this perceived harmony, there are issues stemming from the overthrow that we have not addressed due to apprehension over the emotions that arise when these matters are discussed. I have mentioned this to my colleagues previously, but it bears repeating that there has been no structured process. Instead, there has been fear as to what the discussion would entail, causing people to avoid the issues. Such behavior has led to high levels of anger and frustration as well as misunderstandings between Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians. As a young child, I was discouraged from speaking Hawaiian because I was told that it would not allow me to succeed in the Western world. My parents lived through the overthrow and endured the aftermath as a time when all things Hawaiian, including language, which they both spoke fluently, hula, custom, and tradition, were viewed as negative. I, therefore, was discouraged from speaking the language and practicing Hawaiian customs and traditions. I was the youngest of eight children. I remember as a young child sneaking to listen to my parents so that I could maintain my ability to understand the Hawaiian language. My experience mirrors that of my generation of Hawaiians. While my generation learned to accept what was ingrained into us by our parents, my children have had the advantage of growing up during the Hawaiian renaissance, a period of revival for Hawaiian language, custom, and tradition. Benefiting from this revival is the generation of my grandchildren who can speak Hawaiian and know so much more about our history. It is this generation, however, that is growing impatient with the lack of progress in efforts to resolve longstanding issues. It is this generation that does not understand why we have not resolved these matters. It is for this generation that I have written this bill to ensure that we have a way to address these emotional issues. There are those who have tried to say that my bill will divide the people of Hawaii. My bill goes a long way to unite the people of Hawaii by providing a structured process to deal with issues that have plagued us since 1893. This bill is also important to the people of Hawaii because it affirms the dealings of Congress with Native Hawaiians since Hawaii's annexation in 1898. Congress has always treated Native Hawaiians as Hawaii's indigenous peoples, and therefore, as indigenous peoples of the United States. Federal policies towards Native Hawaiians have largely mirrored those pertaining to American Indian and Alaska Natives. Again, let me reiterate, Congress has enacted over 160 statutes to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians including the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act, the Native Hawaiian Education Act, and the Native Hawaiian Home Ownership Act. The programs that have been established are administered by federal agencies such as the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor. As you can imagine, these programs go a long way to benefit Native Hawaiians, but they also serve as an important source of employment and income for many, many people in Hawaii, including many non-Native Hawaiians. There are many Hawaii residents whose livelihoods depend on the continuation of these programs and services. While I took the time a few weeks ago to talk about Hawaii's history, I want to spend the next few moments discussing that history once again. This is very important to understand the context of what we are trying to accomplish with this bill. The year 1778 marks the year of first contact between the Western world and the people of Hawaii. That year, Captain James Cook landed in Hawaii. Prior to Western contact, Native Hawaiians lived in an advanced society that was steeped in science. Native Hawaiians honored their land (aina) and environment, and therefore developed methods of irrigation, agriculture, aquaculture, navigation, medicine, fishing and other forms of subsistence whereby the land and sea were efficiently used without waste or damage. Respect for the environment and for others formed the basis of their culture and tradition. Society was structured. Chief, alii, ruled each of the islands. Land was divided into ahupuaa, triangular-shaped land divisions which stretched from the mountain to the ocean. Each ahupuaa controlled by a lower-chief. The lands were worked on by the commoners, referred to as makaainana. There was an incentive for the chiefs to treat the makaainana well as they could always move to another ahupuaa and work for another chief. The immediate and brutal decline of the Native Hawaiian population was the most obvious result of contact with the West. Between Cook's arrival and 1820, disease, famine, and war killed more than half of the Native Hawaiian population. By 1866, only 57,000 Native Hawaiians remained from the basically stable pre-1778 population of at least 300,000. The result was a rending of the social fabric. This devastating population loss was accompanied by cultural, economic, and psychological destruction. Western sailors, merchants, and traders did not respect Hawaiian kapu, taboos, or religion and were beyond the reach of the priests. The chiefs began to imitate the foreigners whose ships and arms were so superior to their own. By the middle of the 19th Century, the islands' small non-native population had come to wield an influence far in excess of its size. These influential Westerners sought to limit the absolute power of the Hawaiian king over their legal rights and to implement property law so that they could accumulate and control land. As a result of foreign pressure, these goals were achieved. The mutual interests of Americans living in Hawaii and the United States became increasingly clear as the 19th Century progressed. American merchants and planters in Hawaii wanted access to mainland markets and protection from European and Asian domination. The United States developed a military and economic interest in placing Hawaii within its sphere of influence. In 1826, the United States and Hawaii entered into the first of the four treaties the two nations signed during the 19th Century. King Kamehameha I began the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1810 upon unifying the islands. The Kingdom continued until 1893 when it was overthrown with the help of agents of the United States. The overthrow of the Kingdom is easily the most poignant part of Hawaii's history. Opponents of the bill have characterized the overthrow as the fault of Hawaii's last reigning monarch, Queen Lili'uokalani. Nothing could be further from the truth. America's already ascendant political influence in Hawaii was heightened by the prolonged sugar boom. Sugar planters were eager to eliminate the United States' tariff on their exports to California and Oregon. The 1875 Convention on Commercial Reciprocity eliminated the American tariff on sugar from Hawaii and virtually all tariffs that Hawaii had placed on American products. It prohibited Hawaii from giving political, economic, or territorial preferences to any other foreign power. It also provided the United States with the right to establish a military base at Pearl Harbor. While non-Hawaiians were determined to ensure that the Hawaiian government did nothing to damage Hawaii's growing political and economic relationship with America, Hawaii's King and people were bitter about the loss of their lands to foreigners. Matters came to a head in 1887, when King Kalakaua appointed a prime minister who had the strong support of the Hawaiian people and who opposed granting a base at Pearl Harbor as a condition for extension of the Reciprocity Treaty. The business community, backed by the non-native military group, the Honolulu Rifles, forced the prime minister's resignation and the enactment of a new constitution. The new constitution--often referred to as the Bayonet Constitution--reduced the King to a figure of minor importance. It extended the right to vote to Western males whether or not they were citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and disenfranchised almost all native voters by giving only residents with a specified income level or amount of property the right to vote for members of the House of Nobles. The representatives of propertied Westerners took control of the legislature. This is the constitution that the opponents to the bill have characterized as bringing democracy to Hawaii. A suspected native revolt in favor of the King's younger sister, Princess Liliuokalani, and a new constitution were quelled when the American minister summoned United States Marines from an American warship off Honolulu. Westerners remained firmly in control of the government until the death of the King in 1891, when Queen Liliuokalani came to power. On January 14, 1893, the Queen was prepared to promulgate a new constitution, restoring the sovereign's control over the House of Nobles and limiting the franchise to Hawaiian subjects. She was, however, forced to withdraw her proposed constitution. Despite the Queen's apparent acquiescence, the majority of Westerners recognized that the Hawaiian monarchy posed a continuing threat to the unimpeded pursuit of their interests. They formed a Committee of Public Safety to overthrow the Kingdom. On January 16, 1893, at the order of U.S. Minister John Stevens, American Marines marched through Honolulu, to a building known as Arion Hall, located near both the government building and the Hawaiian palace. The next day, local revolutionaries seized the government building and demanded that Queen Liliuokalani abdicate. Stevens immediately recognized the rebels' provisional government and placed it under the United States' protection. I was deeply saddened by allegations made by opponents of this legislation that the overthrow was done to maintain democratic principles over a despotic monarch. As you can tell by the history I just shared, our Queen was trying to restore the Kingdom to its native peoples after Western influence had so greatly diminished their rights. Colleagues, I want you to understand Hawaii's history and the bravery and courage of our Queen, who abdicated her throne in an effort to save her people after seeing United States Marines marching through the streets of Honolulu. The Republic of Hawaii was formed in 1893, and in 1898, Hawaii was annexed as a territory of the United States. At the time of the overthrow, the Republic of Hawaii took control of approximately 1.8 million acres of land which were held in a trust for the people of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The driving force of the overthrow, the formation of the Republic, and the drive towards annexation was land ownership and control over land. Native Hawaiians, like other indigenous cultures, could not grasp the concept of fee simple ownership of land. The concept of owning land was as foreign to them as the concept of owning air would be to us today. For ancient Hawaiians, and for many Hawaiians today, it is understood that all fortune comes from the aina, or land. Therefore, it was important to cultivate and protect the aina and its resources, but the concept of owning it was inconceivable. Ancient Hawaiian society was based on sharing--everyone cultivated, everyone protected, everyone reaped the benefits. From the time of annexation until present day, as I noted previously in my statement, Congress has treated Native Hawaiians in a manner similar to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Federal policies towards Native Hawaiians have always paralleled policies towards American Indians and Alaska Natives. As early as 1910, Congress included Native Hawaiians in appropriating funds to study the cultures of American Indians and Alaska Natives. In 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside approximately 203,500 acres of land for homesteading and agricultural use by Native Hawaiians. The act was intended to ``rehabilitate'' the Native Hawaiian race which was estimated to have dropped from between 400,000 and 1 million, to 38,000. At the time, prevailing Federal Indian policy was premised upon the objective of breaking up Indian reservations and allotting lands to individual Indians. Indians were not to be declared citizens of the United States until 1924, and it was typical that a 20-year restraint on the alienation of allotted lands was imposed. This restraint prevented the lands from being subject to taxation by the states, but the restraint on alienation could be lifted if an individual Indian was deemed to have become ``civilized.'' The primary objective of the allotment lands to individual Indians was to ``civilize'' the native people. The fact that the United States thought to impose a similar scheme on the native people of Hawaii in an effort to ``rehabilitate a dying race'' illustrates the similarity in federal policies toward Native Hawaiians and American Indians. Opponents of my bill have unfortunately conjured a theory that there was no intent to recognize Native Hawaiians as indigenous peoples at the time of Statehood. I've gone back and reviewed the constitutional convention of 1950 which resulted in the constitution that was adopted in 1959 when Hawaii was admitted to the Union. The delegates to this convention reflected the multi-ethnic diversity in the islands. Only 19 percent of the delegates were Native Hawaiians. The 1950 convention deliberately incorporated provisions of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. It was not without controversy. At least one delegate opposed its inclusion. Yet, the majority of convention delegates voted to include the provisions and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act remains a part of the Hawaii State Constitution today. In addition, the Hawaii Admission Act also required the State to take title over the majority of the public lands which had been ceded to the United States at the time of annexation. The Act required that the lands be held by the state as a public trust, with income and proceeds being used for five public purposes, one of which was to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians. It is clear to me after reviewing these documents that while this issue has not been unanimous, there has always been overwhelming support for efforts to recognize Native Hawaiians as Hawaii's indigenous peoples, and to accord them such treatment. From 1959 to 1978, little was done at the state level to benefit Native Hawaiians. In 1978, the state held a constitutional convention. One of the results of the constitutional convention was the establishment of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a quasi-State agency which was set up to address Native Hawaiian issues. The agency would be directed by a Board of Trustees, all Native Hawaiians, who were to be elected by Native Hawaiians. The State of Hawaii ratified the constitutional convention's proposal and from 1978 to 1999, the Board of Trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was elected by Native Hawaiians. In 1999, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Rice v. Cayetano that because OHA receives state funds, the vote for the Board of Trustees could not be restricted to Native Hawaiians. The vote for the Board of Trustees has since been open to the entire State of Hawaii and all state citizens are eligible to run for a position on the Board of Trustees. The people of Hawaii have elected Native Hawaiians to each of the nine positions. Some of my opponents have claimed that this bill would circumvent the Rice case. There is no intent to circumvent the Rice case. Nothing in this bill would address the election of the Board of Trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. In 1993, P.L. 103-150, the Apology Resolution, was signed into law. The bill apologized to Native Hawaiians for participation of U.S. agents in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and committed the United States to a process of reconciliation with Native Hawaiians. In 1999, officials from the Departments of the Interior and Justice traveled to Hawaii for public consultations with Native Hawaiians. In 2000, the Departments issued a report, From Mauka to Makai: The River of Justice Must Flow Freely. One of the primary recommendations in the report is that legislation should be enacted which would provide Native Hawaiians with greater self-determination within the federal framework over their assets and resources. S. 147 would make this recommendation a reality. The reconciliation process I referred to is still an ongoing process. I see this measure as an important step in the reconciliation process-- a necessary step that provides the structure for us to continue to progress in reconciliation between Native Hawaiians and United States. I also want to share a unique fact about Hawaii's history. We have had six forms of government. Pre-1810 the islands were ruled by chiefdoms. The Kingdom of Hawaii was established, following the unification of the Islands by King Kamehameha I in 1810, and continued until the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893. From 1893-1898, the Republic of Hawaii ruled. The territorial government followed from 1898-1941. During World War II, martial law was declared, resulting in the civilian government being dissolved and a Military Government ruling the territory of Hawaii from 1941-1944. We returned to our territorial government in 1944 and in 1959 we were granted admission into the Union. I can assure my colleagues that the political status of Native Hawaiians has been a hot topic in Hawaii since 1959. In 1999, Hawaii's Congressional delegation formed the Task Force on Native Hawaiian issues. I was selected to head our delegation's efforts. I immediately established five working groups to assist us in addressing the clarification of the political and legal relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. The groups included the Native Hawaiian community, state officials, including agency heads and state legislators, Federal officials, Native American and constitutional scholars, and Congressional members and caucuses. We held several public meetings in Hawaii with the members of the Native Hawaiian community working group and the state working group. Individuals who were not members of the working group, and many who opposed our efforts, were allowed to attend and participate in the meetings. Overall, we had more than one hundred individuals provide initial input to the drafting of the legislation. The bill was first considered by the 106th Congress. Five days of hearings were held in Hawaii in August 2000. While the bill passed the House, the Senate failed to take action. The bill was subsequently considered by the 107th and 108th Congresses. For each Congress, the bill has been favorably reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Committee on Resources. Unfortunately, until now, we have not had an opportunity for the Senate to consider this legislation. S. 147 the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, does three things: (1) it establishes a process for Native Hawaiians to reorganize their governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship with the United States; (2) creates an office in the Department of the Interior to focus on Native Hawaiian issues and (3) establishes an interagency coordinating group comprised of federal officials from agencies who implement federal programs impacting Native Hawaiians. The process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity has received the most publicity and most attention. I am very proud of the careful balance between structure and flexibility provided in the reorganization process. Native Hawaiians will truly be able to make critical decisions in shaping their reorganized governing entity. Some have asked, why do you need to reorganize the entity? My answer is simple--our history requires it. Unlike some of our native brethren, when the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown, our native peoples were not allowed to retain their governing entity. Article 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii required prospective voters to swear an oath in support of the Republic and declaring that they would not, either directly or indirectly, encourage or assist in the restoration or establishment of a monarchical form of government in the Hawaiian Islands. The overwhelming majority of the Native Hawaiian population, loyal to their Queen, refused to swear to such an oath and were thus effectively disenfranchised. Similarly at the time of annexation, an overwhelming number of Hawaiians signed a document in protest of annexation, referred to as the Ku`e Petition. It is this document that I have here. A substantial number of Native Hawaiians signed this document in further protest of what had happened to their government. My bill provides for the reorganization of the governing entity, because upon the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians lost their governing entity. Despite the lack of a government, Native Hawaiians have maintained distinct communities and perpetuated their culture, traditions, customs, and language. While the United States has always treated us in a manner similar to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives, the Federal policy of self-governance and self- determination has not been extended to us because we lack a governmental structure. Opponents of my bill say that I am creating a government. I believe it is clear that, rather than creating a government, I seek to provide an opportunity for the restoration of a government which requires the reorganization of an entity. Similarly, because of our history, the governmental authority in Hawaii is held by the State, local, and Federal governments. For that reason, the bill requires that following the reorganization of the entity and the recognition of the entity by the United States, the Native Hawaiian governing entity will negotiate with the State and Federal governments regarding matters such as the transfer of lands, assets, and natural resources, and the exercise of governmental authority. Everything remains status quo until addressed and resolved in the negotiations process. It is anticipated that Hawaii's State Constitution is likely to require an amendment which will require the vote of all residents in Hawaii. It is also anticipated that implementing legislation at the state and federal levels will be required to implement negotiated matters. This is what I referred to as the structured process that would allow the people of Hawaii to address the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. This process is inclusive and allows for all interested parties to participate. Opponents of my bill have sought to either mischaracterize potential outcomes or to predetermine the process. I have opposed both efforts. As you can see, enactment of this bill alone does not, for example, allow for the native government to exert criminal and civil jurisdiction over people in Hawaii. Rather, for the Native Hawaiian governing entity to exert any jurisdiction, the state and federal government would need to agree to allow the Native Hawaiian governing entity to exercise such authority. Implementing legislation at the state level would also need to be enacted to make this a reality. Others have sought to predetermine this matter. Given the inclusive process that the bill provides, and the fact that the people of Hawaii need to address these matters, I do not believe it is appropriate for Congress to predetermine the outcome of this process. Given everything that I have shared with you, I would hope that you agree with me. Finally, before I conclude, I'd like to speak briefly about what this bill does not do. The enactment of S. 147 will not lead to gaming in Hawaii. There is only one federal statute that authorizes gaming in Indian Country, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and it does not authorize Native Hawaiians to game. In addition, the State of Hawaii is one of two states in the union that criminally prohibits all forms of gaming. Therefore, gaming by the entity would only be allowed with changes to both federal and state law. The enactment of this bill also does not impact funding for Indian programs and services. As I described earlier, Congress has established programs and services for Native Hawaiians. These programs are appropriated from accounts completely separate from those that fund Indian programs and services. The bill clearly states that it does not create eligibility for Native Hawaiians to participate in Indian programs and services. I will conclude where I began. Colleagues, for the people of Hawaii, native issues are not partisan. Many of my constituents merely ask that we do right by Hawaii's indigenous peoples and enact this measure that provides Native Hawaiians with the opportunity to reorganize their governing entity for the purposes of a Federally recognized government- to-government relationship with the United States. Many of my constituents ask that you enact this bill because it provides a structured process for us to finally address longstanding issues resulting from a painful history so that we can all move forward as a State.

Mr. AKAKA. After 6 long years, we will be voting tomorrow on a motion to invoke cloture to proceed to S. 147. Whether you are for or against it, I ask all Members to let this bill come to the Senate so we can discuss its merits. It is only through this dialog, through the airing of facts and the dismissal of misunderstandings and myths, that we can provide a fair and honest consideration of what this measure really means to Native Hawaiians as well as to this great Nation of ours. That is what this honorable body has always done. This is why we gather in this Senate to discuss matters of law and governing and of fairness and of human and civil rights. At the heart of it, this bill is about fairness and about creating a process to achieve it. Native Hawaiians have been recognized as indigenous peoples by Congress. After more than 160 statutes, for more than 100 years, Congress has treated Native Hawaiians in a manner similar to American Indians and Native Alaskans. But when it comes to having a process and Federal policy on self-governance and self- determination, Native Hawaiians have not been treated equally. What this bill does is authorize a process to examine whether a policy of self-governance and self-determination can be extended to Native Hawaiians, thereby creating parity in the way the United States treats its indigenous peoples. We have bipartisan support for this bill. I extend my deep appreciation to its cosponsors, Senators Cantwell, Coleman, Dodd, Dorgan, Graham, Inouye, Murkowski, Smith, and Stevens for their unwavering support. Again, I especially want to honor Hawaii's first Republican Governor, Governor Lingle, in 40 years. Despite our different political affiliations, Governor Lingle, Hawaii's Attorney General Mark Bennett, Hawaiian Homes Commission Chairman Micah Kane, and the rest of the Lingle administration have worked tirelessly with us to support this bill. While that may surprise some in Washington, DC, you have to understand back home, support for Hawaii's indigenous peoples is a nonpartisan issue. We see our diversity as our strength and not as a threat. It is a point of pride and a thing that unites, not divides us. We embrace our diversity and celebrate it as part of our social fabric. It is who we are as a people and as a State. That is why we are not threatened by efforts to preserve and strengthen the culture and traditions of Hawaii's indigenous peoples. Let me also say that the people of Hawaii, including Native Hawaiians, are proud to be Americans and to share that system of government that always has and allows us to be many and also to be one. They include the many Native Hawaiians who are members of the Hawaii National Guard and who are called away from their families to serve in operation Iraqi Freedom. Moreover, it is a well-documented fact that native peoples have the highest per capita rate of those serving in our military. That is why it is absolutely offensive to read mischaracterizations of this bill as an effort to secede from the United States. What this bill really does is provide a structured process to finally address long-standing issues resulting from a dark period in Hawaii history, the overthrow of the kingdom of Hawaii. A few weeks ago I took time to talk about Hawaii's history. I have given a review of that history and its ramifications on this measure. I believe it is absolutely essential for anyone voting on this bill to understand historical context. I strongly encourage all Members to again review this history because there remain issues stemming from the overthrow that have not been addressed because of apprehension based on emotions rather than facts. Instead, there has been fear of where these discussions might lead, causing people to avoid the issue altogether. Such behavior has led to frustration and misunderstanding between some Native and non-Native Hawaiians. But let me bring this complex history and how it has affected us down to a more human scale and to a more personal level. As young child, I was discouraged from speaking Hawaiian because I was told it would not allow me to succeed in the Western World. My parents, God bless them, lived through the overthrow and endured the aftermath, when all things Hawaiian, including language, hula, custom, and tradition, were viewed negatively. I was discouraged from speaking the language and practicing Hawaiian customs and traditions. I was the youngest of eight children. I remember as a young child sneaking to listen to my parents so that I could maintain my ability to understand the Hawaiian language. My experience mirrors that of many other Hawaiians of my generation. While we dealt with the stigma of being Hawaiian, my children have had the advantage of growing up during a period of revival for Hawaiian language, custom, and tradition. My grandchildren, who can speak Hawaiian and know so much more about our history, also benefited from this revival. It is this generation, knowing the history, that grows impatient with the lack of progress and efforts to resolve longstanding issues. It is this generation, steeped in American values of justice, equality, and self-determination, who cannot understand why we have not yet resolved these matters. It is for this and future generations that we have written this bill to address these important issues. There are those who have tried to say that my bill will divide the people of Hawaii. I believe my bill goes a long way to unite the people of Hawaii by providing a structured process to deal with unresolved issues and unhealed wounds that have plagued us since 1893. Essentially, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act does three things: One, it establishes a process for Native Hawaiians to form a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Two, it creates an office in the Department of the Interior to focus on Native Hawaiian issues. And three, it establishes a coordinating group comprised of officials from Federal agencies who implement programs impacting Native Hawaiians. But it is the process for reorganizing a governing entity that has received the most attention. That is why I am very proud of the careful balance between structure and flexibility provided in this process. Native Hawaiians will truly be able to make critical decisions in shaping their government. Some have asked: Why do you need to reorganize a governing entity? My answer is simple: Our country's history requires it. Our sense of justice and fairness requires it. When the kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown, our native peoples were not allowed to retain their governing entity. Article 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii required prospective voters to swear an oath in support of the Republic and declare that they would not, either directly or indirectly, encourage or assist in the restoration or establishment of a monarchy in the Hawaiian Islands. The overwhelming majority of the Native Hawaiian population, loyal to the Queen at that time, refused to swear to such an oath and was thus effectively disenfranchised. Similarly, at the time of annexation, an overwhelming number of Hawaiians signed a document of protest referred to as the Ku'e petition--it is this document that I have--as a substantial number of Native Hawaiians signed this document in further protest of what had happened to their government. Despite the lack of a government, Native Hawaiians have maintained distinct communities and perpetuated their culture, tradition, customs, and language. Opponents of the bill say I am creating a new government. I believe I am providing an opportunity for the restoration and reorganization of a government that once existed and was unjustly removed. Before I conclude, I wish to speak briefly about what this bill does not do. This bill will not result in the taking of private lands in Hawaii. No one will lose their home or business because of my bill. The enactment of S. 147 will not lead to gaming in Hawaii. There is only one Federal statute that authorizes gaming in Indian Country--the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. And it does not authorize Native Hawaiians to game. In addition, the State of Hawaii is one of only two States that criminally prohibits all forms of gaming. Therefore, gaming would only be allowed with changes to both Federal and State law. Enactment of this bill does not impact funding for Indian programs and services. Congress has established separate programs and services for Native Hawaiians. These programs are appropriated from accounts separate from those that fund Indian programs. Moreover, the bill clearly states that it does not allow Native Hawaiians to participate in Indian programs and services. Finally, gaining an understanding of a history of a culture and people we are not familiar with is not an easy task. I commend Members of the body for doing their homework. It can be so easy to simply dismiss this bill as racially based, as a threat to the sovereignty of the United States or as a ploy for one group to gain an undeserved advantage. The harder task is a studied one. But it is the right one. If I might take you back in history one more time for just a moment: In the 1840s, recognizing the strategic importance of the Hawaiian Islands, the great maritime powers of the day--principally England, France, and the United States--jockeyed for positions of advantage, even as they acknowledged the islands as an independent nation. It was a time of much international intrigue. Urged on by local British residents, the commander of the British squadron in the Pacific sent an armed frigate to Honolulu to ``protect British interests.'' King Kamehameha III was forced to yield to British guns, and for 5 months the islands were placed under British rule. International pressure, as well as personal intervention from Queen Victoria herself, eventually forced the British Government to declare the action as unauthorized. On July 31, 1843, the Hawaiian flag was raised once again. During a service of thanksgiving held at historic Kawaiahao Church in Honolulu, Kamehameha III recited a phrase that has since become Hawaii's State motto: Ua mau . . . ke ea . . . o ka aina . . . I ka pono--the life of the land . . . is perpetuated . . . in righteousness. That has always been the case, not only in Hawaii but throughout our Nation's history. The people of Hawaii are asking that we do right by Hawaii's indigenous peoples and enact this measure that provides Native Hawaiians with an opportunity for self-determination and self- governance. They ask that we enact this bill because it provides a structured process to finally address longstanding issues resulting from a painful moment in our history, so that we can move forward as a State. They ask that we enact this bill because it is just, because it is fair, because it is the right thing to do. We are a nation of immigrants, and we celebrate our diversity every day at dining room tables around the country. In this grand experiment of democracy, we have found we can be many and yet be indivisible. The United States of America has pledged itself to liberty and justice for all people. This bill does that for the Native Hawaiians. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my dear colleague from Hawaii, the senior Senator, who has spoken from the heart about our bill and about what it means to our people in Hawaii, the unity of support that is there in Hawaii and also the support that is here nationally. He mentioned NCAI, the National Congress of American Indians. He mentioned the AFN, the Alaska Federation of Natives. Also, the American Bar Association has supported our bill. These are national organizations that have studied it and have considered this bill to be worthwhile. As I mentioned in my statement, this bill has been reviewed by the Departments of Justice and the Interior, the White House and the administration. They have made clarifications that we will include in our amendments and in our substitute amendment. This is a bill that does not have anything to do with starting a government that would be able to do what it wants. This governing entity will be structured so that it can deal with the problems of the Hawaiian people and will give them a seat at the table. It will give them an opportunity to negotiate whatever they decide. I should tell you, those who have spoken in opposition to this bill are good friends that we respect--and we will continue to do that--who have other reasons to oppose our bill. I do respect them very deeply. But our bill is one that will help the Hawaiians to deal with their concerns. When it was stated that I had mentioned that they could secede, the question that was asked me was whether that could happen. I pointed out that to secede, the Hawaiians would have to take it to this governing entity and this entity would decide whether they should take this to be negotiated with the State government and then with the Federal Government. Let's say they do decide to secede as an entity. I don't think the State government, with the State laws, would agree to that. It has to be negotiated. And let's say if--and I know it won't happen--the State of Hawaii agrees to that. Then it has to go to the Federal Government. So this is all within the law. I have spoken to those in Hawaii who want Hawaii to be independent. I have told them you can use the governing entity to discuss it. This is what I meant. They can bring these issues to the governing entity and the governing entity will make a decision as to independence or returning to the monarchy. But all of this would be within the law of the United States, as mentioned by my senior Senator. It will be within the Constitution of the United States. But this gives the Hawaiians a governing entity to deal with their concerns and negotiate them on the State level as well as the Federal level. Also, in the substitute amendments that we will be offering, it does have the clarifications from the administration as well. So I rise to urge my colleagues to permit us to bring it to the floor, to permit us to do that through cloture and then to let the Senate decide about our bill. As I said, the United States of America is a nation that has consistently tried to keep liberty and justice alive and well. This is an opportunity to do that. I urge my colleagues to consider their vote, give us their votes on cloture so we can then bring it to the floor and discuss it further. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

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

Mr. AKAKA. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would bar same-sex marriages and prohibit the Federal Government and all States from conferring ``the legal incidents'' of marriage on unmarried couples. I oppose this amendment on several grounds. First, if passed, this amendment would restrict the rights of an entire class of people. Second, the amendment would turn back the clock on the Supreme Court's decisions guaranteeing the right to privacy. Third, this amendment would abridge the traditional jurisdiction of State governments. Finally, the amendment would compromise the welfare of children currently being raised by same-sex parents. The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment directly contradicts one of the Constitution's fundamental principles--the guarantee of equal protection for all. Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times and, with the exception of prohibition, each time it has been to expand the rights of the American people. Adoption of the Marriage Protection Amendment would tarnish that rich tradition by targeting a specific group for social, economic and civic discrimination. I believe that, as government leaders, it is our responsibility to protect individual liberties, not to take them away or restrict them. The Marriage Protection Act also undermines the numerous Supreme Court decisions which ensure individuals' right to freedom from government interference with regard to their personal lives. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the Constitution protects an individuals fundamental freedom to make decisions regarding private matters such as marriage and family. The Marriage Protection Act would go a long way toward eroding these constitutional guarantees to the right to privacy. Customarily, marriage law has been left to the jurisdiction of the States. Passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment would define marriage at the Federal level and would prohibit States from exercising their authority over family law issues. As such, it would clearly violate the traditions of federalism and local control that have been a proud part of our national heritage. Allowing the Federal Government to co-opt what historically has been a prerogative of the States sets a dangerous precedent with regard to the erosion of States rights. My vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment is a vote for the preservation of State sovereignty. Given the Marriage Protection Amendment's broad and ambiguous language, it would have a potentially devastating effect on existing same-sex families. In particular, I am concerned how this amendment would impact the children currently being raised by same-sex parents. Not only would it curtail States from granting equal marriage rights to same-sex couples, it could also, through their parents, deprive children of access to health insurance, life insurance benefits and inheritance rights. According to the 2000 Census, more than one-half of the same-sex households in the United States have children under the age of 18. Passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment could place the current well-being and future security of these children at risk. This is a chance I am unwilling to take. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to reject this divisive bill. With so many problems currently facing our Nation such as the ongoing threat of terrorism, soaring gas prices and the high cost of medical care, now, more than ever, we need to work together as an ohana--a family. This amendment will only serve to segregate a portion of our population and prevent them from participating as full citizens. Instead I urge us all to work together to ensure that the freedoms enumerated by the Constitution can be equally enjoyed by all.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help train and motivate our homeland security workforce. As the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Federal Workforce Subcommittee, I understand the challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. Our committee and subcommittee have held numerous hearings on a broad spectrum of DHS-related issues, including poor contract management, ineffective financial systems, and major human capital challenges. I have met with DHS employees and management officials to discuss problems ranging from leadership deficiencies and high employee turnover rates to management challenges. Vacancies resulting from the recent departures of key, high level officials further threaten employee morale and the Department's ability to provide for the security of our Nation. DHS cannot meet its mission if it does not have a well-trained and dedicated workforce. Failure to provide adequate training and career development programs for employees will have serious consequences for our national security. My bill, the Homeland Security Professional Development Act of 2006, will strengthen the workforce at DHS through the establishment of formal mentoring and rotational programs. The mentoring program will partner junior and entry level workers with more experienced employees to foster an understanding of how employees' roles and responsibilities fit into the Department's mission and to develop career goals. The voluntary rotation program would place midlevel employees in a different component of DHS for a period of time to provide for professional development; increased knowledge of the Department's various missions; and networking opportunities. Participants in the rotation program would be eligible for promotions or other employment preferences. Together the mentoring and rotational programs will improve communication; strengthen recruitment and retention programs; help with succession planning; enhance networking opportunities; and provide a pool of qualified future leaders. I commend DHS for recognizing the need to strengthen its workforce. Last July, the Department unveiled its Homeland Security Learning and Development Strategic Plan to align education, training, and professional development with the Department's strategic goals. The plan addresses the need to align education and professional development with the Department's vision, mission, core values, and strategic plan. However, this plan alone will not address the daunting challenges facing DHS. Congress must act to ensure that agency-wide employee development programs are in place to eliminate cultural and educational stovepipes. My bill will increase employee organizational knowledge and technical proficiency in the critical homeland security skill sets required to keep our Nation safe. For example, the Science and Technology Directorate, S&T, would benefit greatly from rotational programs with other DHS directorates and components, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and Customs and Border Protection, CBP. Rotations between these entities would ensure that S&T projects and priorities are correctly aligned with ICE and CBP requirements, in addition to ensuring a cohesive homeland security workforce. Mentoring programs can hasten the learning curve for new employees, improve employee performance, and alter the culture of the organization by creating a collaborative, team-based, and results-oriented structure. Such programs have a proven track-record of success. According to the April 10, 2006, issue of Federal Human Resources Week, mentoring opportunities are welcomed by federal workers and help in recruitment and retention efforts. This finding is not new. A 1999 workforce study found that 35 percent of private sector employees who did not receive regular mentoring planned to seek other jobs within the next 12 months. This number was reduced to 16 percent when employees received regular mentoring. In addition, according to the International Mentoring Association, employee supervision increases productivity by only 25 percent. However, when training is combined with coaching and mentoring, productivity is increased by an astounding 88 percent. One positive example of the benefits of mentoring is the apprentice program at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in my home State of Hawaii. Established in 1924, the Pearl Harbor apprentice program has graduated thousands of highly qualified and skilled journeymen to ensure that the U.S. Navy remains ``Fit to Fight.'' The Department of Homeland Security continues to face considerable management, leadership, and human capital challenges. The Homeland Security Professional Development Act of 2006 will tackle these challenges by building on the current training efforts of the Department and fostering a well-rounded and well-trained homeland security workforce. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to highlight the wonderful work being conducted by VA's Medical and Prosthetic Research Program. VA research programs continue to lead in developing innovative and effective methods of treatment that have been its trademark since World War II. From its inception, the VA research program has made landmark contributions to the welfare of veterans and the entirety of the Nation. Past VA research projects have resulted in the first successful liver transplant performed in the United States, development of the cardiac pacemaker, and pioneered the technologies that led to the CT and MRI scans. VA research also played a vital role in treating tuberculosis, rehabilitating blind veterans, and more recently, launched the largest ever clinical trial of psychotherapy to treat PTSD. In 2004, VA research took on leadership of a $60 million nation wide study--funded by the National Institute on Aging and other partners--to identify brain changes linked with Alzheimer's disease. VA research also established a major center of excellence, in partnership with Brown University and MIT, to develop state-of-the-art prosthetics for veteran amputees. For the last 60 years, VA research has been extremely competitive with its private sector counterparts. I would like to recognize a few research projects that can potentially benefit veterans living in remote and rural areas across the country, including veterans living in my home State of Hawaii, where the geography creates challenges in accessing care. One study, Telemedicine and Anger Management Groups for PTSD Veterans in the Hawaiian Islands, builds on preliminary research supporting the use of technology for improving access to mental health care for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. The study focuses on the effectiveness of conducting anger management group therapy treatment through video-teleconferencing. I also applaud the Pacific Islands Division of the National Center for PTSD in Honolulu. Their efforts have improved access to PTSD treatment in remote areas and contributed to the knowledge and understanding of cultural factors related to PTSD. I commend the Pacific Islands Division for its collaboration with the Department of Defense. I hope that VA and DOD continue to work together on future research projects aimed at providing better treatment for servicemembers and veterans alike. In 2004, VA Research Currents, a publication that highlights the excellent work of the VA research community, reported on a study which found that men who walked less than a quarter of a mile each day were, on average, nearly twice as likely to develop dementia compared to those that walked more than 2 miles a day. This research project was led by Robert D. Abbott, Ph.D, of the University of Virginia; senior author Helen Petrovitch, M.D.; and coauthor G. Webster Ross, M.D., of the Honolulu VA Medical Center. According to the researchers, the findings suggest that promotion of an active lifestyle could promote better health later on in life. The last study I would like to discuss examines the correlation between drinking coffee and preventing Parkinson's disease. It has been said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case, VA researchers and their colleagues found that consuming at least 28 ounces of coffee can lower the risk of Parkinson's disease. Lead author G. Webster Ross, M.D., along with colleagues from the Kuakini Medical Center, used participant dietary nutritional data from the Honolulu Heart Program for their findings. The study helped scientists better understand the mechanisms of Parkinson's disease and found a strong correlation between coffee drinkers and low rates of Parkinson's disease. Dr. Ross did note, however, that it was too early to recommend drinking coffee to prevent Parkinson's disease. To ensure that VA can continue these studies and tremendous successes, VA research must be given the funds to do the job. VA research funding must be at a level that takes into account not only inflation but new challenges as well. Most importantly, adequately funding VA research helps to ensure that VA remains an attractive option to our best and brightest in medicine. Chairman Craig and I, along with 60 of our colleagues, have recommended $432 million in funding for VA research next year, notwithstanding that this number is just to maintain current services and avoid any personnel or project cuts. Just last week, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the VA research program, hearing firsthand the challenges researchers face in not only finding new methods of treatment but in funding, too. I came away from the hearing with a better understanding of the VA research program's needs, as well as the challenges we in Congress can help them overcome. That is why I, along with 61 of my colleagues, have recommended an addition to the VA research budget and not a decrease. Less funding for VA research at this point in time will have negative consequences down the road, when VA inherits the servicemen and women currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let us not fail in our responsibilities of providing adequate funding so VA's Medical and Prosthetic Research Program can continue to innovate and save lives.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Gregg Agena of Mililani Middle School for being recognized as the national middle school teacher of the year by the National Association for Sports and Physical Education. Initially, Gregg was honored by being named the Southwest District Middle School Physical Educator of the Year. The Southwest District of the National Association for Sport and Physical Education, NASPE, is a six-State region, which includes Hawaii. There were four other finalists for the national recognition, and it is with esteemed pride that I recognize and congratulate Gregg for receiving the national honor. The award, which was announced at the NASPE national convention in Salt Lake City, UT, is a recognition of outstanding teaching at the middle school level and for motivating students to participate in physical activity throughout their entire lives. As a former educator and principal, I know firsthand of the countless hours that go into creating curricula, and it makes me proud to see outstanding teachers receive recognition for their hard work. Gregg, who received both his undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, my alma mater, has also been recognized as the Nike Teacher of the Year, Hawaii Middle School Physical Education Teacher of the Year, and the recipient of the Ola Pono, which is Hawaii's Drug Free Award. I would also like to recognize Kay Bicoy of Pearl City High School, who was named the Southwest District High School Physical Educator of the Year by NASPE. This was the first time that a public school teacher from the state of Hawaii was selected as a district award recipient, and it is with immense pride that I recognize not only one, but two teachers from my home State for such an accomplishment. The dedication of Gregg and Kay to their field and to the children of Hawaii are undeniable. I congratulate them both not only for these outstanding recognitions, but especially for their dedication to educating the youth from the state of Hawaii, and I wish them the very best in their future endeavors.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge my colleagues to support our current servicemembers, veterans, and their families by supporting the pending measure, the final agreement on the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006. This is a vital and timely piece of legislation that has already passed the House of Representatives. With Senate passage today and the President's signature it will quickly become public law. Mr. President, this measure, which I shall refer to as the ``Compromise Agreement,'' will improve and expand a wide variety of veterans benefits and programs, including, among others, housing benefits for Native American veterans and severely disabled servicemembers; insurance benefits for certain disabled veterans; compensation benefits for former prisoners of war; and programs that provide assistance to homeless veterans. This legislation is appropriate at a time when our servicemembers 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 improving and expanding veterans benefits. In 1992, I authored the legislation that established a pilot program to make direct housing loans to Native American veterans for homes on tribal lands. As of the end of April, VA had made 504 loans to this group of veterans. Under this program, VA offers loan guarantees that protect lenders against loss up to the amount of the guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the loan. Prior to the enactment of this law, Native American veterans residing on tribal lands were unable to qualify for VA home loan benefits. With the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program indigenous peoples residing on trust lands are now able to use this very important VA benefit. I am pleased that the Compromise Agreement contains a provision derived from legislation I offered, S. 917, that would make this pilot program, which was set to expire on December 31, 2008, permanent. The Compromise Agreement also extends, from 1 to 2 years, the amount of time a disabled servicemember has to convert his or her Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage into Veterans' Group Life Insurance coverage. This change is being made so that veterans may concentrate on recovering from their injuries or conditions, and not on meeting deadlines for life insurance conversion. Under current law, former prisoners of war have to been held for a minimum of 30 days before they can benefit from a presumption that certain diseases are linked to their service. The Compromise Agreement also would add heart disease and stroke to presumptive conditions for service-connection for former prisoners of war. Homelessness among veterans is a critical problem. It is particularly troubling to me that an estimated 56 percent of today's homeless veterans are minorities. The homeless rate in my home state of Hawaii has nearly doubled since early 2000, with the majority of Hawaii's new homeless being Native Hawaiians. The city of Honolulu has a tremendous problem with affordable housing, increasing the possibility of becoming homeless for those who already struggle to make ends meet. The Compromise Agreement would reauthorize through fiscal year 2009 the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs, which are the only Federal programs dedicated wholly to providing employment services to homeless veterans. Also included in the Compromise Agreement is my provision that would make a technical change to the specially adapted housing grant program. Last session, the law that allows severely disabled members of the Armed Forces to receive specially adapted housing grants from VA, while still on active duty, was inadvertently repealed. My provision would correct this and restore the grant to its original intent. In conclusion, I thank Senator Craig and the benefits staff on the majority for their work on this comprehensive bill, especially Jon Towers, Amanda Meredith, and Lupe Wissel and, on the Democratic staff Dahlia Melendrez, Pat Driscoll, and Noe Kalipi for their hard work on this legislation. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation on behalf of America's veterans and their families.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to share information about S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. Some of my colleagues have made reference to a recent report issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights which characterizes my bill as race-based legislation. The report itself, however, does not contain any substantive analysis. Rather, it outlines the testimony that was presented to the commission. I have already shared with my colleagues my dismay and displeasure with the manner in which the Commission considered S. 147. Not once did they contact the Hawaii Advisory Committee to the Commission, which is composed of experts on Hawaii's history, Federal Indian Law, and Federal policies toward indigenous peoples. In addition, during the briefing upon which this report is based, it was clear that certain Commissioners lacked a general understanding of Federal Indian law, a necessary context to understand the existing political and legal relationship between native Hawaiians and the United States. Commissioner Michael Yaki understood both the history of Hawaii and Federal Indian Law and he, along with Commissioner Arlen Melendez, dissented from the Commission's position that S. 147 is race-based legislation. I ask unanimous consent that Commissioner Yaki's dissent be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, earlier this month I had the honor of joining Linda Springer, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, and John E. Potter, the Postmaster General of the United States, at a breakfast to kick off the four-day celebration on the National Mall celebrating Public Service Recognition Week. The annual Mall event is part of the yearly, week-long observance to celebrate and recognize public employees sponsored by the Public Employees Roundtable at the Council for Excellence in Government. While Director Springer and I gave brief remarks to the distinguished guests at the breakfast hosted by GEICO, I was extremely impressed by the words of the Postmaster General who gave the keynote address. I want my colleagues to have the opportunity to read Mr. Potter's words, which so eloquently explain why the millions of public servants at all levels of government should be recognized for the work they do daily on our behalf. Mr. President, I ask that the address of Mr. Potter be printed in the Record. The address follows. Keynote Address--Postmaster General/CEO John E. Potter, May 4, 2006 Thank you, Chairman Harper, President McGinnis and our special guest, Director Springer. I'd also like to take a moment to recognize and thank Tony Nicely, Chairman of GEICO, the sponsor of today's event. Tony recently wrote about the efforts of Louisiana GEICO employees to serve their customers in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The local claims office was flooded and many employees lost everything. But they showed up at work to process claims and get those checks to policyholders as quickly as possible--through the mail, of course! I know exactly what Tony has experienced. I was in New Orleans the week after the storm and again, last month. If I learned nothing else, I learned about the frailty of the things we build. In the span of a few hours, Katrina broke open levees and brought down entire neighborhoods. Its winds dropped houses on highways and tossed ships on shore. In the days and months since, we have seen repeatedly the one thing that could not be conquered by even this unprecedented storm--the human spirit. One of the postal employees I talked with told me that the members of his extended family lost eight homes in and around New Orleans. Yet, like him, hundreds of our people were back at work almost immediately. Within days of the storm, they set up temporary locations to get social security checks into the hands of thousands of local residents. Where they could, our carriers were back on the streets delivering mail. I know our customers appreciated their efforts to bring normalcy back to a very difficult situation. So, let me welcome all of you and let me congratulate the millions of employees from every federal agency, the military, every state, every county, every city, every village--and volunteers everywhere throughout America. Wherever you are, you serve your communities and your nation in so many ways. Public Service Recognition Week celebrates each and every one of you. It's an honor you've earned through outstanding efforts--and I salute you. When I was asked to join you here, I didn't know that the Postal Service would be at the center of the news. By now, I'm sure you've heard that the Postal Service plans to adjust rates next spring. Why? Well, our charter requires us to operate like a business--and to break even. But the Postal Service doesn't receive any tax money to pay for its operations--and we haven't for 25 years. When you boil it down, the American people pay for the operation of the world's largest and most efficient mail delivery system every time they buy a stamp. Like each of you, and like every business and government agency in America, the Postal Service is not immune to rising costs. And given our size those costs can really add up. Each year, our 700,000 employees deliver 212 billion pieces of mail to 145 million homes and businesses--and that's growing by about 2 million new addresses every year. They work from more than 37,000 Post Offices and drive more than 260,000 vehicles while delivering the mail. Every time the price of gas goes up just a penny, our costs go up $8 million a year. And the price of gas has doubled since 2002, the last time we changed rates to offset growing operational costs. You can do the math. Our people have a big job and they're doing it better than ever. Through their efforts, service and customer satisfaction have reached record levels. They've helped us improve efficiency six years running--and this year, we're expecting a seventh. And by the time the price of a First-Class stamp goes up-- one year from now--the average increase for that five year period will be exactly one penny a year--and be below the rate of inflation. As I said, the Postal Service is required to operate like a business. And we're not alone. Across the board, all government agencies are working to become more business-like. There's a drive for efficiency. There's a drive for keeping costs down. There's a drive for measurable results. There's a drive to provide continuously improving service. And that puts us all on the horns of a dilemma. That's something I thought about when I had a conversation with Bill Russell a few years ago. Most of you remember Bill as the cornerstone of the Boston Celtics back in the 60's. He was an incredible shot blocker who revolutionized defense in the NBA. Bill is still active, although he's traded in his jersey with the big number 6 on it for a suit and tie. He's very involved in mentoring--helping children develop basic skills so they can turn their dreams into reality. Bill joined us at a dedication for a stamp we issued to honor and encourage mentoring. When I was talking to Bill, he had a question for me. ``Jack, you're part of the government, but there's a lot of business in what you do, right?'' ``That's right,'' I told him. Then he asked me, ``What kind of government do we have?'' I paid attention in school, so I was pretty confident when I said that we're a democracy. But the quiz wasn't over yet. ``What does that mean?'' he asked. ``It means one person, one vote, equal rights for everybody, and we elect fellow citizens to represent us.'' Then Bill told me that our government has evolved over time. It's a function of compromise--everyone comes to the table with their own interests. So, at the end of the day, as a government entity, your mission is a dual mission. It's not just to deliver service. It's really much broader than that. It's about compromise. It's about change. It's about focus on mission. But it's about carrying out that mission with a very different perspective than others might bring to it. There's an important message there. As Postmaster General, I have to stay focused on numbers--on-time delivery, cost per delivery, customer satisfaction, productivity, and, of course, making money or losing money. That's something everyone in government has to focus on, too. That's the business end of things. But, as Postmaster General, I can never forget that my job is about more than just numbers. As a government agency, we can never operate like a pure business--and we shouldn't. There's a social aspect to everything we do. We provide a useful and needed service--from the biggest cities to the smallest towns. We keep people in touch. We keep them connected. And we have to make sure we treat everyone equally. After all, our government doesn't belong to us, it belongs to everybody, no matter who they are, no matter where they are, no matter what their circumstances. So, when we make decisions, we have to keep that in mind. Yes, we have to manage our budgets. Yes, we have to consider things like return on investment. Yes, we have to make our departments and our agencies more efficient than ever. Yes, we have a lot of scrutiny. And, yes, we answer to a lot of bosses--in my case, 280 million of them--and one boss who can really tell me how I'm doing--my wife Maureen. But we can never forget one thing. Behind every program we propose or implement, there are people. There are families. There are businesses--large and small--providing jobs and opportunity for those families. Each of them is relying on their government for the services that make so much else possible. And those services don't always lend themselves to a pure profit and loss statement. That's why government is different. And that's at the heart of public service. When you choose a career in public service, there are tradeoffs. You'll never make the Forbes list of America's billionaires--unless you hit the Powerball a few times. And if you're like me, you've probably got a ticket in your pocket! You'll never get to exercise a stock option as part of your benefit program. And that corporate jet? Well, I've always found that the Metro is pretty reliable. But the satisfaction is priceless. How does it feel to give a child a head start by teaching her to read her first sentence? How do you put a price on the joy of the family whose idea you helped turn into a business? How do you measure the lives saved by the research grant that helped someone find a cure for a terrible disease? And how can you not be moved by the smile of a grandmother when she receives a birthday card from her first grandchild--whether she's in the next town, in a village in the Alaskan bush, or halfway across the ocean in Hawaii? You do all of this, and more. As public employees, you have a tremendous responsibility. You have a tremendous record of performance. You represent the very best in public service. You--and everyone in public service--should be proud. And at the Postal Service, that's something we think about every day. We have to. That's because we're the one government service that makes a personal visit to just about everyone in the nation, just about every day. For many Americans, we're the daily face of their government. So, when they're judging us, they're also judging their government and, to a certain extent, they're judging you. Believe me, that's a powerful motivator for the Postal Service. We don't want to let you down--and we won't. We're all about service--and it will stay that way. Service is part of our DNA. It's what we do. It's who we are. I'm proud to say that our people have remained focused on service and brought it to record levels. And that's been reflected in customer satisfaction ratings that are the envy of just about any organization. Our history has been about service. We've helped build a great nation and bring its people together. We've been an important part of new business development--something we still do today. Think about eBay, think about Netflix, think about Amazon. They're all smart, modern, internet-based companies that have become powerful economic engines that rely on the mail. But, as I said, what we do--what we all do--is about more than just a simple business equation. I think of that every day when I hear about quiet heroes, like Mike Miller, a letter carrier from a suburb of New Orleans. Mike rode out Hurricane Katrina in his houseboat. After the storm, he saw total destruction everywhere. With a friend, Mike took his inflatable, motorized boat and responded to cries of help for four straight days, ferrying hundreds of people from rooftops to higher ground. In one case, Mike stopped when he thought he heard sounds coming from a house that was almost completely submerged. With no way in, he pulled his boat to the roof, yanked off a vent pipe and yelled down. He heard a faint response and, with his friend, frantically pulled off roof tiles, cut through the beams, and dropped into the attic. Groping through the darkness, heat and water, he discovered an elderly woman, barely alive. They lifted her through the opening in the roof and brought her to safety. Looking back, Mike said, ``I was just doing what had to be done.'' To Mike Miller, and to so many others like him, I say, ``Thank you!'' When I think about people like Mike, and every one of our employees who bring their best to the job every day, I know we can meet just about any challenge that comes our way. And Mike's not alone. There are people like him all across the government. People serving people. People willing to do what it takes--and then some. In closing, let me recognize the men and women of the Postal Service, and every government employee, from the smallest villages, to the largest cities; from every county, every state and every federal agency. You make our nation and your community a better place with all that you do. You have earned the recognition you are receiving this week. I salute you and I am honored to be one of you. Thank you.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my amendment to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. This amendment will clarify the process for countries to enter the visa waiver program, which enables foreign nationals of member countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. In doing so, the program facilitates international travel and commerce. In addition, the visa waiver program eases the workload of consular officers who are already struggling to process a significant backlog of visa applications. Since 1986, when it first began as a pilot program, the visa waiver program has been a success. Over 27 countries have become certified to participate in the program in the past 20 years, and our Nation has realized substantial diplomatic and economic rewards. Relationships with our allies have been strengthened by the gesture of good will and the increase in tourism due to the visa waiver program has greatly benefitted the Nation's tourist economy. Admission into the visa waiver program has never been an easy task. At this time, to qualify for the program, a country must do all of the following: it must offer reciprocal privileges to U.S. citizens; it must have had a nonimmigrant visa refusal rate of less than 3 percent for the previous year; it must certify that it has established a program to issue its citizens machine-readable passports that are tamper-resistant and incorporate a biometric identifier into their passports. In addition to these requirements, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, must also determine that the country's inclusion into the program will not compromise the law enforcement objectives or security of the United States. As current law dictates, once all of these requirements have been met, the Attorney General may then designate the country a member of the visa waiver program. This means that even if a country has expended the time and effort to go through this rigorous process and has met our Government's stringent standards, its application could still be denied or, at best, indefinitely delayed by the Attorney General. This amendment addresses two issues. First, it will revise the current law to reflect changes in the administration of the visa waiver program since 9/11 and codify those into law. While the Department of Justice continues to play a role in the designation of visa waiver program countries, the final certification of a visa waiver country is now made by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, rather than the Attorney General. My amendment will ensure that the Secretary of DHS is specified as the final authority on this matter. Second, this amendment will designate a nation a member of the visa waiver program as soon as all of the requirements have been met. In doing so, this amendment provides potential member countries with the assurance that their applications will not be held up by bureaucratic redtape or inefficiencies. It also advances our attempts to build positive relationships based on good faith with applicant countries. The visa waiver program is one means by which we can recognize our affinity with nations who share our principles and goals for a future of peace, justice, and freedom. Consequently, quicker inclusion into the visa waiver program once the requirements have been met is vital to fostering and maintaining close cultural and economic ties with friendly nations. In addition to helping build strong diplomatic relations between nations, the visa waiver program has become key to the ongoing success of our tourism industry and business community. By eliminating the visa requirement, the program has facilitated international travel to our Nation for both business and for pleasure. In 2004, 15.9 million visitors entered the United States under the visa waiver program, constituting 58 percent of all overseas visitors. The program encourages foreign visitors to plan their vacations in the United States, which can result in increased economic growth and tourism dollars for the United States. Over the years, the visa waiver program has played a vital role that has become critical to our Nation's tourist industry. According to the Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, all but 1 of the top 10 ten tourism-generating countries to the United States are visa waiver program nations. For states such as California, Florida, and my own home State of Hawaii which depend heavily on the tourist industry, the visa waiver program is integral to the strength of our economy. Clarifying the mechanism for countries to enter the program would strengthen the program and, in doing so, strengthen the economy on both a local and national level. Given the considerable benefits that the visa waiver program affords the United States, it is imperative that nations who are interested in engaging in the lengthy and complicated process to become a visa waiver program feel confident that, if they strive to meet our strict security standards, they will be allowed to participate in the program. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this amendment which will update current legislation to more accurately reflect the post-9/11 administration of the program and perhaps, more important, confirm our commitment to those nations which would like to participate in the program that as soon as they have fulfilled our requirements, we will fulfill our promise.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I join my colleagues in tribute to my dear friend and tremendous public servant, Congressman, Senator, and Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, on his recent passing. His tenure in Federal service is notable and well documented three terms in the House of Representatives and four terms in the Senate representing the people of Texas and 2 years as Secretary of the Treasury under former President Bill Clinton. I remember Lloyd as a giant in the Senate leadership when I first came to this body in 1990. He wielded the gavel at the Finance Committee and had already ascended to national recognition as a formidable Vice Presidential nominee in 1988. He was a Senator who worked hard every day to benefit the people of Texas and of this country. As a distinguished World War II veteran, Lloyd was always supportive of our veterans and fulfilling their urgent needs. He fought to preserve and protect women's rights, including the Equal Rights Amendment. He understood the needs of America's entrepreneurs and business owners and carried his acumen in economic policy from the Senate into the Clinton administration. Millie and I remember Lloyd and his wife B.A., from our years in the Senate together, with fondness. We join others in extending to his family our warmest wishes in this difficult time. We say farewell to a true statesman. This Nation is richer for his life and poorer for his loss.