Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Bonni Berge, a Brookings fellow in my office, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the Senate's debate on S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to ask for a voice vote.

Mr. AKAKA. I agree that English is the common language of our Nation. Everyone should learn it, just as I believe everyone should learn other languages and more about the world around them. But I must oppose the Inhofe amendment because it does not merely encourage learning the English language. I am concerned that this amendment will have far- reaching consequences and eliminate the rights of many Americans. First of all, the Inhofe amendment is unnecessary. English is the de facto official language of the United States. In fact, according to the 2000 census, only 9.3 percent of Americans speak both their native language and another language fluently. Second, the Inhofe amendment is divisive. The sponsors of the amendment claim that this is needed to promote national unity. However, our common language is not what unifies this country. It is our common belief in freedom and justice. The first amendment to the Constitution ensures that we have the freedom of speech. We are free to speak in all languages--not just English. For those individuals who do not speak English, this amendment would deny U.S. citizens with limited English proficiency basic rights. For example, our country was founded on the belief that the people of this country hold the power--they are the check on our Government. However, limiting services to the English language could deny people the right to exercise this power and receive essential Government services. Moreover, children growing up in homes that speak languages other than English will feel stigmatized. 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 of the Kingdom of Hawaii and endured the aftermath as a time when all things Hawaiian, including language, which they both spoke fluently, hula, customs, and traditions, were viewed as negative. I, therefore, was discouraged from speaking the language and practicing Hawaiian customs and traditions. 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. This is the same problem facing bilingual education. There is a push to stop the learning of other languages when individuals are young, when it is much easier to learn another language, but then we tell those same people that it is essential that they learn another language to preserve our national security. This is contradictory. Third, the amendment sends the wrong message to our heritage communities. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we sought out these individuals to help with our translation efforts; however, now we are telling them that we do not value their language enough to provide them with essential services in their languages. The ability to speak a foreign language is critical to our national security, and we should not discourage that in any way. Fourth, the Inhofe amendment could prohibit the Government from providing emergency services in other languages or providing critical health and safety materials to non-English speakers since such programs may not be required by law. People's lives might be endangered by this amendment. Finally, I worry that the very strength of our democracy is threatened by this amendment. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 2703, a bill to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Importantly, S. 2703 will continue to require bilingual voting assistance. Unless every citizen has access to the polls and can understand the language on their voting ballot, our democracy is not as strong as it could be. We want immigrants and individuals from all over the world to learn about the United States and what defines us. I think our basic freedoms are what define us. To limit the ability of non-English speakers to know about the United States and experience and observe the freedoms on which this country was founded, would be a disservice to the United States. Actions speak louder than words, no matter the language. I urge my colleagues to act to oppose the Inhofe amendment.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to honor their valiant contributions to our Nation by supporting my amendment.

Mr. AKAKA. My amendment has received a letter of support from the Asian American Justice Center. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter from the Asian American Justice Center to be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask that Senators Murray and Cantwell be added as cosponsors to my amendment.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it has long been evident that our immigration system needs reform. The debate on immigration has been a long time in coming, and I am pleased that this body is moving forward on this important topic in such a comprehensive fashion. For our work on immigration to be truly comprehensive, however, we must address those issues that have received less attention in the debate as well as the front page issues. My amendment is regarding one of those issues that has not received widespread attention but is of great importance. As a World War II veteran, this amendment is important to me personally, to Filipino- Americans, and to veterans. My amendment would grant the children of Filipino World War II veterans special immigrant status for the purpose of family reunification. Making this small change to our nation's immigration policy would go a long way toward making our immigration laws more just, and I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this amendment. Before I begin a discussion on the specifics of my amendment, I would first like to thank my dear friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Daniel Inouye, for cosponsoring this amendment. In the 101st Congress, Senator Inouye authored section 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990, which provided for the naturalization of Filipino World War II veterans. Senator Inouye has a long history of being involved in this important effort and it is an honor to have his support on my amendment today. In addition, Representative Ed Case has introduced a similar bill, H.R. 901, in the House of Representatives. To understand the significance of this amendment, it is important to first provide some background about the historical circumstances that got us where we are today. On the basis of 1934 legislation enacted prior to Philippine independence, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued a 1941 executive order. Through this order, President Roosevelt invoked his authority to ``call and order into the service of the Armed Forces of the United States, . . . all of the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.'' This order drafted over 200,000 Filipino citizens into the United States military. Under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, Filipino soldiers fought alongside American soldiers in the defense of our country. Throughout the course of World War II, these Filipino soldiers proved themselves to be courageous and honorable as they helped the United States fulfill its mission. There was no question when they were fighting that they would be treated the same as American troops. For example, Filipino soldiers fought side-by-side with American soldiers in the Battle of Bataan and the Battle of Corregidor. When Bataan fell and the Bataan Death March began, Filipino soldiers were forced to march more than a hundred kilometers from Bataan to Tarlac along with their American comrades. Filipino soldiers faced hardships in concentration camps, and they endured 4 years of occupation by the Japanese. In every sense, Filipino soldiers proved their allegiance to our country through thick and thin. These Filipino soldiers are war heroes, and they deserve to be honored as such. They served active duty service on behalf of the U.S. military, which should qualify them for the same benefits as other veterans of active duty. Congress betrayed these veterans by enacting the First Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act in 1946, which included a rider that conditioned an appropriation of $200 million, for the benefit of the postwar Philippine Army, on the basis that service in the Commonwealth Army should not be deemed to have been service in the Armed Forces of the United States. Commonwealth Army members were those called into the service of the U.S. Armed Forces for the Far East. These members served between July 26, 1941, and June 30, 1946. Similarly, Congress enacted the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act, which provided that service in the New Philippine Scouts was not deemed service in the U.S. military. New Philippine Scouts were Filipino citizens who served with the U.S. Armed Forces with the consent of the Philippine Government. They served between October 6, 1945, and June 30, 1947. This generation of veterans is predominantly in their eighties. Of the 200,000 Filipino veterans that served in WWII, there are close to 49,000 left. Some of these veterans receive U.S. benefits, some do not. By 2010, it is estimated that the population will have dwindled to 20,000. With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, the courage of the many Filipino soldiers who fought alongside our troops during World War II was finally recognized by our Government, and Filipino veterans were offered the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship. According to the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, about 15,000 Filipino veterans live in the U.S. and became citizens between 1991 and 1995 under the authority of the Immigration Act of 1990. Between that time, about 11,000 veterans who live in the Philippines were successfully naturalized. These thousands of Filipino veterans clearly wished to spend their golden years in the United States, and I am pleased that the 1990 Immigration reform efforts offered them the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, the offer did not extend to the adult sons and daughters of these veterans. As a result, the brave Filipino veterans who fought on behalf of America, and who now live in America and continue to contribute to America, must do so alone. Due to a backlog in the issuing of visas, many of the children of these veterans have waited more than 20 years before they were able to obtain an immigrant visa. Unfortunately, many more are still waiting. It is no secret that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security is facing significant backlogs. However, it is not as widely known that prospective family-sponsored immigrants from the Philippines have the most substantial waiting times in the world before a visa is scheduled to become available to them. What this means, is that these honorable Filipino veterans who faced numerous dangers to defend this Nation now face the prospect of spending the last years of their lives without the comfort and care of their families. It is a shameful disgrace that the sons and daughters of these brave soldiers are now last in line to become citizens of our country. This is no way to honor Filipino soldiers who bravely fought on the front lines with American soldiers during World War II. As a World War II veteran myself, I am proud to have answered my nation's call to active duty. During my time of active service, I was driven by a love for my country, and I was comforted by the love of my family. The support that a soldier's family offers during military service is an invaluable buoy to a soldier's spirit. A family's role in caring and supporting for a soldier becomes even more important after active military service is completed. I was lucky to be surrounded by my family after my service. My heart goes out to those who were separated from their family for years and years due to bureaucratic backlogs. As the ranking member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have seen firsthand the difficulties that veterans can face when readjusting to civilian life after serving in a war. For many veterans, the difficulty of returning to a home that has changed while at war is eased by being surrounded by the familiar faces of loved ones. While that window of opportunity has unfortunately passed for our World War II Filipino veterans, there are still many important ways that families enrich the lives of veterans after the initial readjustment phase. Being surrounded by the love and care of family, especially for World War II veterans facing their twilight years, offers a special source of support. Action on this issue is long overdue, and it would be very meaningful for the Senate to pass my amendment during debate on the immigration bill. As you may know, Filipino Americans are celebrating their centennial this year. Late last year, the Senate accepted by UC S. Res. 333, a resolution to recognize the centennial of sustained immigration from the Philippines to the United States, and acknowledge the contributions of the Filipino-American community to our country over the last century. The Filipino-American community has grown and thrived over the last hundred years. Today, Filipino-Americans are the third largest ethnic group in the State of Hawaii and represent one of the fastest growing immigration groups in the country. Filipinos have made contributions to every segment of our community, ranging from politics and sports, to medicine, the military and business. One of the foremost issues for Filipino Americans is our Nation's commitment to Filipino veterans, and passing my amendment would be a significant way to honor Filipino veterans during a historic year for the Filipino American community. Over the years, I have listened to the stories of countless Filipino World War II veterans who have been separated from their families and who are patiently waiting in line. Every veteran has a unique story to tell, but those Filipino World War II veterans who have not yet been reunited with their family members share a universal bond of heartache. Another important commonality among Filipino World War II veterans is hope. Those Filipino World War II veterans still separated from their families are hopeful that we will use this opportunity to rectify the unjust oversight in current law. The poignant truth behind this matter is that if we don't act now, we may not have another opportunity. This weekend I am participating in the first annual ``A Time of Remembrance'' event, which honors the families of the American fallen. Family members from all 50 States will come to the National Mall at noon this Sunday, May 21, 2006, to recognize the important contributions our fallen heroes have made on behalf of America. I am proud to take part in this event, which points out the very real ways that families are impacted when soldiers courageously leave their family and fight to defend freedom. For those World War II veterans who are still with us, this event points to the importance of honoring them now, before it is too late. Let us prove those wrong who say that we are waiting until enough veterans die before we right this injustice. These veterans have been waiting for 60 years to have their benefits reinstated. Unfortunately, our efforts to provide them with the benefits they were promised, the benefits they fought for, have been unsuccessful because opponents have cited the payment of such benefits as too costly. The Filipino Veterans from World War II have already made extreme sacrifices. They should not be forced to endure the further sacrifice of life without their loved ones. It is time that the United States fulfill its responsibility to these veterans. The least we could do is help to unite these aging veterans with their families. We are a nation that keeps its word . . . not a nation that uses people for our own purposes and then casts them aside. Ensuring that our World War II Filipino Veterans can enjoy and be supported by their family members in their twilight years is a simple yet profound way of honoring these war heroes. My amendment has received strong support from Filipino veterans, the Filipino-American community, and the Asian-American community. The Japanese American Citizens League, the Organization of Chinese Americans, and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center have all endorsed my amendment. In addition, the American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, which represents over 4,000 Filipino Veterans across the country, has wholeheartedly endorsed my amendment with a letter of support that states: S. Amdt. 2049 will be a timely benefit to address the veterans' loneliness and will provide them with a partial measure of U.S. veterans recognition that they were unjustly denied in 1946. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Officer With Enhanced Rights Act of 2006, POWER Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Lieberman, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, in introducing this important legislation, which is a companion bill to H.R. 3041. The POWER Act will strengthen the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Chief Privacy Officer, CPO, and will provide a much needed check on government power. Americans have an expectation that their personal privacy will not be invaded and that their government will not misuse its powers. Democracy is founded on the principle that the people are the ultimate source of the Government's powers. Recent events validate the suspicions of our Nation's Founders against concentrating power into the hands of the few or in granting authority to those who are not accountable for how power is utilized. We need to consider the effects of intelligence and information gathering now that new government powers threaten to erode our most cherished freedoms and technological advances appear to outpace our ability to protect personal information. In response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, new law enforcement strategies were created and information sharing between government agencies increased substantially. DHS was established to face new challenges and address new threats. However, we were concerned that the unprecedented size and reach of the new department could intrude on the values that our nation cherishes most dearly. We wanted DHS to accomplish its vital mission, but we had to make sure that it was not at the cost of our liberty. Times of crisis and unexpected trials do not excuse curtailment of our citizens' fundamental liberties, which is why the DHS CPO was created. The mission of the CPO is to ensure that the loss of the freedoms that define this country would not be sacrificed for increased vigilance against our adversaries. Although I voted against the Homeland Security Act, I was pleased to work with my colleagues to establish the CPO. The DHS CPO has three primary responsibilities: (1) assuring that new technologies and information gathering methods do not erode personal privacy; (2) evaluating the privacy impact of new government programs; and (3) investigating privacy complaints. However, the CPO's powers have proved to be inadequate. The major problem is that the CPO lacks subpoena power and, therefore, cannot fully investigate privacy violations. Instead, the CPO must rely on voluntary submissions of information in order to conduct investigations which significantly weakens the office. We all remember the news accounts about how the CPO's requests for documents in her investigation of the Transportation Security Administration's, TSA, transfer of passenger data from a major commercial air carrier to the Defense Department were rebuffed repeatedly. Our bill will go a long way to ensure that such situations will not happen again. We are also concerned by the fact that the CPO cannot communicate directly with Congress, but instead, must report through DHS senior leadership. Similar to the Inspector General, the CPO can often be put at odds with those subject to investigation, so the authority to report directly to Congress and deliver unaltered findings is critical. The POWER Act will address these shortcomings by providing the CPO with the power to: access all records deemed necessary to do the job; undertake any privacy investigation that is appropriate for the office; subpoena documents from the private sector when necessary to fulfill the CPO's statutory mandate; and obtain sworn testimony. To provide independence for this position, the CPO will submit reports directly to Congress regarding the performance of his or her duties, without any prior comment or amendment by the DHS Secretary. In addition, our bill would protect the CPO from retaliation by mandating that the CPO cannot be removed from office without notifying the President and Congress of the reasons for removal. With concerns over the development of new data mining activities at the Department and the potential use of commercial data by TSA, it is essential now more than ever that the DHS CPO have the tools and authority to protect the personal information of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support from the American Civil Liberties Union be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Officer With Enhanced Rights Act of 2006, POWER Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Lieberman, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, in introducing this important legislation, which is a companion bill to H.R. 3041. The POWER Act will strengthen the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Chief Privacy Officer, CPO, and will provide a much needed check on government power. Americans have an expectation that their personal privacy will not be invaded and that their government will not misuse its powers. Democracy is founded on the principle that the people are the ultimate source of the Government's powers. Recent events validate the suspicions of our Nation's Founders against concentrating power into the hands of the few or in granting authority to those who are not accountable for how power is utilized. We need to consider the effects of intelligence and information gathering now that new government powers threaten to erode our most cherished freedoms and technological advances appear to outpace our ability to protect personal information. In response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, new law enforcement strategies were created and information sharing between government agencies increased substantially. DHS was established to face new challenges and address new threats. However, we were concerned that the unprecedented size and reach of the new department could intrude on the values that our nation cherishes most dearly. We wanted DHS to accomplish its vital mission, but we had to make sure that it was not at the cost of our liberty. Times of crisis and unexpected trials do not excuse curtailment of our citizens' fundamental liberties, which is why the DHS CPO was created. The mission of the CPO is to ensure that the loss of the freedoms that define this country would not be sacrificed for increased vigilance against our adversaries. Although I voted against the Homeland Security Act, I was pleased to work with my colleagues to establish the CPO. The DHS CPO has three primary responsibilities: (1) assuring that new technologies and information gathering methods do not erode personal privacy; (2) evaluating the privacy impact of new government programs; and (3) investigating privacy complaints. However, the CPO's powers have proved to be inadequate. The major problem is that the CPO lacks subpoena power and, therefore, cannot fully investigate privacy violations. Instead, the CPO must rely on voluntary submissions of information in order to conduct investigations which significantly weakens the office. We all remember the news accounts about how the CPO's requests for documents in her investigation of the Transportation Security Administration's, TSA, transfer of passenger data from a major commercial air carrier to the Defense Department were rebuffed repeatedly. Our bill will go a long way to ensure that such situations will not happen again. We are also concerned by the fact that the CPO cannot communicate directly with Congress, but instead, must report through DHS senior leadership. Similar to the Inspector General, the CPO can often be put at odds with those subject to investigation, so the authority to report directly to Congress and deliver unaltered findings is critical. The POWER Act will address these shortcomings by providing the CPO with the power to: access all records deemed necessary to do the job; undertake any privacy investigation that is appropriate for the office; subpoena documents from the private sector when necessary to fulfill the CPO's statutory mandate; and obtain sworn testimony. To provide independence for this position, the CPO will submit reports directly to Congress regarding the performance of his or her duties, without any prior comment or amendment by the DHS Secretary. In addition, our bill would protect the CPO from retaliation by mandating that the CPO cannot be removed from office without notifying the President and Congress of the reasons for removal. With concerns over the development of new data mining activities at the Department and the potential use of commercial data by TSA, it is essential now more than ever that the DHS CPO have the tools and authority to protect the personal information of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support from the American Civil Liberties Union be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise again to talk about legislation of critical importance to me and the people of Hawaii, S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. As my colleagues are aware, we have been trying to schedule this bill for a debate and vote on the Senate floor. Unfortunately, the bill has been blocked by a handful of my colleagues who fail to understand the importance of this issue to the people of Hawaii. S. 147 is a bipartisan bill. It is supported by members on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation: Senators Cantwell, Coleman, Dodd, Dorgan, Graham, Inouye, Murkowski, Smith and Stevens. Your support for the people of Hawaii has not gone unnoticed. I want to talk about what we did to draft this legislation. I want to explain the broad and inclusive process that we used. My colleagues should know that in drafting this legislation we consulted a broad array of individuals, both native and non-native. In 1999, Hawaii's Congressional delegation formed the Task Force on Native Hawaiian Issues. The Task Force was composed of myself, the senior Senator from Hawaii, and our colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representative Neil Abercrombie and Patsy Mink. It was determined that I would serve as the head of the Task Force. My colleagues need to understand that the issue of political status for Native Hawaiians is not a new issue. It has been a hot topic for many, many years and in fact has been a topic of contention since Hawaii became a State in 1959. Given its history, I wanted to tap into the experience of the many individuals who have addressed this issue and who would be impacted by Federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. I decided to establish five working groups: the Native Hawaiian Community working group, the State officials working group, the Federal officials working group, the Native American and Constitutional Scholars working group, and the Congressional members and caucuses working group. Overall, more than 100 individuals were involved in meeting and advising Hawaii's Congressional delegation on what should and should not be included in this legislation. The Native Hawaiian Community working group's role was to advise us as to the views of the Native Hawaiian community. The membership of the working group was balanced to include a broad variety of individuals from different islands, professions and backgrounds. The State officials working group was composed of State legislators as well as the heads of State agencies who would be directly impacted by a Native Hawaiian governing entity participating in a government-to- government relationship with the United States. This group advised us on the impact of such a policy on State programs and agencies. The Federal officials working group was composed of Federal officials from agencies currently administering services and programs impacting Native Hawaiians. The role of this working group was to advise us of how best to extend the Federal policy of self-governance and self- determination to Hawaii's indigenous peoples. The Native American and constitutional scholars working group was composed of a number of tribal leaders and key constitutional scholars in Indian law. We benefited from the advice provided by tribal leaders who were willing to share lessons learned and from constitutional scholars well-versed in Federal Indian law. The Congressional members and caucus group was composed of our colleagues who sought to help us at the member level to move this legislation. 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 over 100 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. In Each Congress, the bill has been favorably reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and its companion measure has been favorably reported by the House Committee on Resources. Despite the many modifications to the legislation over the past 7 years, I have ensured that the process authorized in this bill has always retained the appropriate balance between the structure necessary to comply with Federal law and the flexibility necessary to ensure that Native Hawaiians can make the critical decisions necessary to form their governing entity. I want all of my colleagues to know that when the Senate considers this bill, I will offer a substitute amendment. The substitute amendment has been widely distributed since September 2005 and is the result of successful negotiations between the executive branch officials and our Congressional delegation and Governor. I thank the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for helping to facilitate the negotiations process. The substitute amendment satisfactorily addresses the concerns raised in a letter from the Department of Justice to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. The letter addressed 4 concerns with the legislation: liability of the United States, civil and criminal jurisdiction, military readiness, and gaming. The legislative language in the substitute amendment has been cleared by the executive branch and addresses the practical concerns expressed in the July 13, 2005 letter. I look forward to the debate on the substitute amendment. My colleagues can see from the process that I have just outlined that this legislation is based on the collective thoughts of a wide array of individuals, native and non-native, from Hawaii and across the entire Nation. It is based on the contributions of individuals well-versed in the Federal policies dealing with indigenous peoples--by those who understand the legal and political relationship the United States has with its indigenous peoples. It is based on Federal law and is substantiated by the many judicial rulings on the political and legal relationship between the United States and its indigenous peoples. It reflects the respect that the people of Hawaii have for the preservation of the culture and traditions of Hawaii's indigenous peoples--the culture and traditions which form the basis of the spirit of Aloha--which all citizens of Hawaii are proud to demonstrate. This bill is supported by Hawaii's Governor, Linda Lingle, the Hawaii State Legislature, Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The National Congress of American Indians and the Alaska Federation of Natives have passed resolutions in support of this bill. The bill is also supported by a number of organizations, native and non-native, including the American Bar Association, Japanese American Citizens' League, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, and the Hawaii State Teachers Association. I want to express my sincerest appreciation to our majority and minority leaders for working with me and Hawaii's senior Senator on scheduling the Senate's consideration of S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. It is my understanding that the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 147 will be filed on June 6, 2006, with the vote on the motion to occur on June 8, 2006. I look forward to this opportunity to finally discuss S. 147. As my colleagues have heard over the past week, this is an issue of importance to all of the people of Hawaii, and this is not a native versus non-native issue in Hawaii. Rather, this is about authorizing a process for the people of Hawaii to be able to address longstanding issues resulting from a tragic, poignant period in our history. This is about establishing parity for Hawaii's indigenous peoples in Federal policies. This is about clarifying the existing political and legal relationship between native Hawaiians and the United States. Again, I express my deep appreciation to our majority and Democratic leaders, to the cosponsors of this legislation, and to the senator from Arizona for helping to work out this agreement. I want to express my deep appreciation to Hawaii's senior Senator who has stood firm with me as we have sought to do what is right for the people of Hawaii. Passing this legislation will make it right. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, too many in our country are uninsured or unable to afford health care. For those with coverage, costs continue to rise as insurance premiums and copayment increases make it more difficult to continue to access health care. We must take steps to increase health insurance coverage and expand access to affordable health care, but we must not do so in a manner which will undermine existing coverage and leave consumers without adequate protections and benefit mandates. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, to expand access to employees through his bill, S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act. However, the preemption of State laws will have negative impacts on consumers. Existing State benefit requirements ensure consumers are protected against the cost of illness and provided coverage to preventive services at earlier stages for the better likelihood of favorable treatment. AARP, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Cancer Society, a sample of the many health care related organizations opposed to the legislation, believe that the bill ``could remove critical consumer protections pertaining to rating and benefits as well as reduce broad access to the services necessary to continue producing better outcomes for those with cancer, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses.'' Health care organizations are not alone in their opposition to this legislation. Attorney generals across the country, including Attorney General Mark Bennett in Hawaii, are opposed to S. 1955 because it would cause health insurance consumers to lose important state protections. We must act to make health care more affordable. An alternative to S. 1955 is S. 2510, the Small Employers Health Benefits Program Act. This legislation would help improve access to insurance without bypassing State consumer protections. The legislation would also provide a tax credit to make health coverage more affordable. In addition, we need to enact reforms to ensure generic competition for name brand prescription drugs. The legitimate patent protection period needs to be respected, but we need to make sure that generic prescription drugs get to market in a timely manner and that name brand drug companies cannot simply pay generic drug companies to not make a drug. Greater use of generic drugs will help slow the increase in health care costs without reducing access. Unfortunately, the majority in the current Congress have made it more difficult to access health care. For example, the Deficit Reduction Act contained a provision which will require individuals applying or reapplying for Medicaid to verify their citizenship through additional documentation requirements. For most native-born citizens, these new requirements will most likely mean that they will have to show a U.S. passport or birth certificate. These requirements will create barriers to health care, are unnecessary, and will be an administrative nightmare to implement. One in 12 U.S. born adults, who earn incomes of less than $25,000, report they do not have a U.S. passport or birth certificate in their possession. Also, more than 10 percent of U.S.-born parents, with incomes below $25,000, do not have a birth certificate or passport for at least one of their children. An estimated 3.2 to 4.6 million U.S.- born citizens may have their Medicaid coverage threatened simply because they do not have a passport or birth certificate readily available. Many others will also have difficulty in securing these documents, such as Native Americans born in home settings, Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless individuals. Having to acquire a birth certificate or a passport before seeking treatment will create an additional barrier to care. Some beneficiaries may not be able to afford the financial cost or time investment associated with obtaining a birth certificate or passport. The costs vary by State and can be as much as $23 to get a birth certificate or $97 for a passport. Taking the time and obtaining the necessary transportation to acquire the birth certificate or a passport, particularly in rural areas where public transportation may not exist, creates a hardship for Medicaid beneficiaries. Further compounding the hardship is the failure to provide an exemption from the new requirements for individuals suffering from mental or physical disabilities. Those suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer's may lose their Medicaid coverage because they may not have or be able to easily obtain a passport or birth certificate. It is likely these documentation requirements will prevent beneficiaries who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid to enroll in the program. This will result in more uninsured Americans, an increased burden on our health care providers, and the delay of treatment for needed health care. I have introduced legislation, S. 2305, to repeal the additional documentation requirements to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries are not unfairly denied access to care by these burdensome and unneeded requirements. I had hoped that I would be able to offer my bill as an amendment to the pending legislation. However, the majority has taken action that will prevent this from occurring on S. 1955. We also need to improve and simplify the Medicare prescription drug benefit so that all seniors are able to obtain all of the medications that they need. We must correct the mistakes of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act and fulfill the promise to seniors that the Federal Government will help beneficiaries get the drugs they need. We also need to extend the deadline so that seniors are not unfairly penalized if they need more time to figure out which plan is right for them. Another important Medicare issue are provider reimbursements. Rising costs, difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff members, and declining reimbursement rates make it necessary to make improvements in Medicare reimbursements to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to health care services. We must increase Medicare reimbursements for service providers so that they can continue to afford to treat Medicare beneficiaries. Another issue that should be addressed during Health Care Week is stem cell legislation. I am a proud cosponsor of S. 471, introduced by Senators Specter and Harkin, which would authorize Federal funding for research on stem cells derived from embryos donated from in vitro fertilization. Unless this legislation is enacted, these embryos will likely be destroyed if they are not donated for research. This bill also would institute strong ethical guidelines for this research. The House companion measure is pending consideration in the Senate. We must pass this bill so that researchers may move forward on ethical, federally funded research projects that develop better treatments for those suffering from diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's. Mr. President, I am afraid that this will be a Health Week only in terms of rhetoric because we are not able to offer amendments to address the pressing health needs of this country. Instead of working together to find common solutions to better meet the health care needs of our country, the majority party has simply offered up legislation that is flawed and refuses to work with us in a meaningful way on this issue.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the chairman of the Finance Committee is a very good friend, and I know him as a good friend and a very passionate person who takes his work very seriously and is a hard worker in this body. I want him and the body to know that I do appreciate his good work. In this body we know that many of the bills offered are not perfect. We know there are many bills that are of concern to Members of this body and for those they represent. Mr. President, once again, we are faced with a tax package that represents misplaced priorities, and that is not in line with the views of a majority of Americans, including taxpayers in my State of Hawaii. My constituents are calling for fairness in tax treatment, and they are not getting it in this tax package. The $70 billion tax reconciliation conference report before us puts tax cuts for the richest in this country above tax relief for the middle class. It leaves out real solutions for real pocketbook issues for middle America, like the gas price crunch that has many families in a bind. It is outright fiscally irresponsible in an era when annual federal deficits exceed $300 billion, and uses budget gimmicks and timing shifts to mask its true costs. There are other choices that my colleagues and I would have made, and did make when we passed the Senate version of this bill, such as extending the Research and Development and Work Opportunity Tax Credit, but, once again, we were simply shut out of meaningful input into the conference committee process. My constituents will not appreciate the inequities in this conference report. The measure provides an estimated annual tax cut of $42,000 for those making more than $1 million. For the top one-tenth of one percent of households in this country whose incomes exceed $1.6 million, tax cuts will average more than $82,000. Roth IRA changes would benefit those taxpayers who make $100,000 or more, meaning that more than 99 percent of the benefit would go to the top 20 percent income group. In contrast, Mr. President, the average tax reduction for middle-income families would be $20. Only five percent of benefits would go to those earning annual incomes of $75,000 or less. What does this mean for those who are left out of this package? Not a single taxpayer can deduct state or local sales taxes from their 2006 federal taxes. School teachers who purchase classroom supplies out of their own funds--and I remember doing this when I was a teacher, and my teachers doing this often when I was a principal--will pay higher taxes this year. Families paying college tuition will be unable to deduct that tuition from their taxes this year. Employers will not receive a tax credit for people hired from welfare to work, so fewer will be hired. The research and development tax credit will not be available this year to businesses working hard on innovations to allow America to remain competitive in global markets. And, as the Ranking Member for the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee with jurisdiction over D.C., I must protest the non-inclusion of certain tax incentives for the District of Columbia. Large oil corporations are taken care of in this package, while people in Hawaii and many others across the country continue to see their household budgets squeezed by high gas prices. This week, according to the AAA Daily Fuel Gauge, the average price for the nation is $2.88 a gallon for regular unleaded. The average price in my state of Hawaii where most supplies are imported is a whopping $3.40 per gallon for regular unleaded, and this number is steeper on the neighbor islands. I really feel for my constituents who have long commutes, such as those going from Wahiawa or Nanakuli to downtown Honolulu, Kona to Hilo on the Big Island, or Lahaina to Kihei on Maui, whose household budgets leave little room for excess costs. Hawaii's average price a year ago was almost a dollar lower per gallon, at $2.51 for regular unleaded. You can see what this has done to household expenses in my state and across the country. This tax package presented an opportunity to send a message to big oil. Instead, it fails to adequately curtail existing tax benefits for big oil--benefits that business leaders in the industry say they do not need--and includes pared back provisions such as a measure that eliminates exploration expensing. In the meantime, protections for those buying hybrid vehicles were weakened. The conference report does not respond to the current crisis at the gas pumps in a meaningful way. For all of these reasons, Mr. President, I oppose this tax reconciliation conference report. We are once again burning the candle at both ends--shrinking revenues while absorbing tremendous ongoing costs for our military operations, efforts to combat terrorism, and relief for hurricane victims. This package comes at the wrong time and fails to deliver on promises of fairness to the American people.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise once again to discuss legislation I have introduced to extend the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Hawaii's indigenous peoples. S. 147 would provide parity in the federal policies towards indigenous peoples in the 50 states, to include American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. To understand the importance of this legislation, one must understand Hawaii's history. Despite the fact that the Congress passed P.L. 103- 150, the Apology Resolution, which recites Hawaii's history, many of my colleagues are unaware of our history. Let me provide some context of what we have experienced so that you might better understand the importance of this bill to my state. Captain James Cook landed in Hawaii in 1778. Prior to Western contact, Native Hawaiians lived in an advanced society that was steeped in science. Native Hawaiians honored their land 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. 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. This devastating population loss was accompanied by cultural, economic, and psychological destruction. 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. 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. 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. The Kingdom of Hawaii, which began in 1810 under the leadership of King Kamehameha the first, continued until 1893 when it was overthrown with the help 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 also 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. 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. It 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. The Bayonet constitution has been characterized as bringing democracy to Hawaii by opponents to S. 147. The constitution was not about democracy--it was about a shift in power to business owners from natives. 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, a Committee of Public Safety was formed 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 Lili'uokalani 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 the rights of the native peoples in Hawaii. Colleagues, I want to ensure that you understand our true history and the bravery and courage of our Queen, who abdicated her throne after seeing U.S. Marines marching through the streets of Honolulu. She did so to save her people. Mr. President, I also want to discuss the diversity of Hawaii's people. As I've said before, we celebrate our diversity as the sharing of our cultures, traditions, and languages; it is what makes us so special in Hawaii. Our diversity unifies us. Colleagues, I want you to know that during the period of the Kingdom, many people traveled through and to Hawaii. In 1832, records indicate that there were 400 foreigners in Hawaii. Starting in 1852, sugar plantations began to recruit foreign workers to Hawaii. They included Chinese, Portuguese, Japanese, and Filipino workers. While many of these workers were temporary and returned to their homelands, a number of them stayed in Hawaii and have embraced the culture and traditions of Hawaii's indigenous peoples. The opponents of this legislation first tried to represent this issue as a native vs. non-native issue. They failed to understand how we celebrate diversity in my home State and how so many embrace all things Hawaiian whether or not they can trace their lineage back to the aboriginal, indigenous peoples of Hawaii. The opponents also fail to understand the tremendous respect the people of Hawaii have for Native Hawaiian culture and the fact that the average person is not threatened by the idea of Native Hawaiians having recognition. The people of Hawaii understand that the preservation of rights for Native Hawaiians does not happen to their detriment. The opponents of this legislation have tried to spread misinformation about the bill to lead non-Hawaiians to believe that their rights will be taken away if the bill is passed. This is not true. In the days to come I will elaborate more. Today, however, I wanted to share Hawaii's history and to explain the celebration of diversity and of multiculturalism in my home state. I am proud of my constituents--proud of their many cultures and traditions--and the fact that they are secure enough in their heritage to be able to support parity in federal policies for Native Hawaiians. I ask my colleagues to join me in helping to do what is right, what is just for Native Hawaiians. I look forward to the support that I will receive from my colleagues. Thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to tell you about my history. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue of significant importance to the people of Hawaii, S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. While opponents of this legislation have sought to characterize this issue as a Native versus non-Native issue, I am here to tell you that there is nothing further from the truth. This bill is important to all of the people of Hawaii. Why? 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 been able to address due to apprehension over the emotions that arise when these matters are discussed. 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. Benefitting from this revival are 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. As I have just explained, 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. The misguided efforts of my colleagues who seek to delay the Senate's consideration of this bill, however, may have a divisive effect on my state. 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. 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. This, colleagues, is why this bill is important to the people of Hawaii. I ask all of you to respect our efforts by voting to bring this bill to the floor for consideration and for a vote.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about bipartisan legislation that is of critical importance to the people of Hawaii. S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, would extend the Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians, by authorizing a process for the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Together with my senior Senator and the rest of Hawaii's congressional delegation, I first introduced this bill in 1999. The bill passed the House in 2000, but, unfortunately, the Senate adjourned before we could complete consideration of that bill. Since then, I have introduced a bill every Congress. In every Congress, the committees of jurisdiction--the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Committee on Resources--have favorably reported the bill and its companion measure. I thank the majority leader, the senior Senator from Tennessee, who is working to uphold his commitment to bring this bill to the Senate floor for a debate and rollcall vote. I must tell my colleagues that he did try to meet his commitment in September 2005 and did schedule it for the floor. But at that time, Katrina happened, and we took it off the calendar. I also appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Arizona who opposes the bill on substance, but has worked with me to uphold his promise to allow the bill to come to the floor for debate and rollcall vote. S. 147 does three things. First, it authorizes the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior. The office is intended to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States. It is not intended to become another Bureau of Indian Affairs, as the current program for Native Hawaiians will remain with the agencies that currently administer those programs. Second, the bill establishes the Native Hawaiian interagency coordinating group. This is a Federal working group to be composed of representatives from Federal agencies who administer programs and services for Native Hawaiians. There is no statutory requirement for these agencies to work together. This working group can coordinate policies to ensure consistency and prevent unnecessary duplication in Federal policies impacting Native Hawaiians. Finally, the bill authorizes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. And we ask: Why do we need to organize the entity? It is because the Native Hawaiian Government was overthrown with the assistance of U.S. agents in 1893. Rather than shed the blood of the people, our beloved queen, Queen Lili`uokalani, abdicated her throne after being arrested and imprisoned in her own home. Following the overthrow, a republic was formed. Any reformation of a native governing entity has been discouraged. Despite this fact, Native Hawaiians have established distinct communities and retained their language, culture, and traditions. They have done so in a way that also allows other cultures to flourish in Hawaii. Now their generosity is being used against them by opponents of this bill who claim that because Native Hawaiians do not have a governing entity, they cannot partake in the Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination that is offered to their native brethren in the United States. My bill authorizes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. There are many checks and balances in this process which has the structure necessary to comply-- to comply--with Federal law and still maintains the flexibility for Native Hawaiians to determine the outcome of this process. Further, my bill includes a negotiations process between the Native Hawaiian governing entity, the State of Hawaii, and the United States to address issues such as lands, natural resources, assets, criminal and civil jurisdiction, and historical grievances. Nothing that is currently within the jurisdiction of another level of government can be conveyed to the Native Hawaiian Government without going through this negotiations process. I am proud of the fact that this bill respects the rights of Hawaii's indigenous peoples through a process that is consistent with Federal law and it provides the structured process for the people of Hawaii to address the longstanding issues which have plagued both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians since the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I want to reiterate to my colleagues that this bill is not race based. This bill is based on the Federal policies toward indigenous peoples. Those who characterize this bill as race based fail to understand the Federal policies toward indigenous peoples. Those who characterize this bill as race based fail to understand the legal and political relationship the United States had with the indigenous peoples and their governments preexisting the United States. Finally, those who characterize this bill as race based are saying that Native Hawaiians are not native enough. I find this offensive. And I ask that my colleagues join me in my efforts to bring parity to Native Hawaiians by enacting my bill. This effort will continue from day-to-day here. We will continue to bring forward the history of Hawaii and the reasons why we are trying to enact this bill, not only for the benefit of the indigenous people of Hawaii but for the benefit of the United States as well. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to oppose a resolution stating that it is the Sense of the Senate that statements of national unity, including the National Anthem, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Oath of Allegiance sworn by new U.S. citizens should be recited or sung in English. I agree with my colleagues that English is the common language of the United States and I join with them in urging all people who come to the U.S. and those who want to become U.S. citizens to learn the English language and understand our culture. Conversely, I believe the U.S. would benefit if its citizens knew the languages and cultures of other nations. We must develop long-term relationships with people throughout the world and learn to speak other languages, whether or not the languages spoken are considered critical for a particular situation or emergency. As 9/11 showed us, the failures of communication can do swift damage. S. Res. 458 acknowledges that the vast majority of Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants, and that millions of Americans speak or study other languages. It further states that despite the linguistic and historic cultural diversity of the nation we are all Americans and our common language is English. However, even though English is our common language, the State Department offers translations of the National Anthem, the U.S. Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance, and other U.S. documents in French, Arabic, and other foreign languages on its Web site to help people better understand America. Nor did President Bush refrain from singing the National Anthem in Spanish when he was running for office in 2000 or prevent pop star Jon Secada from singing our anthem in both English and Spanish when entertaining the President in 2001. The resolution offered by my colleagues states that the original national motto of the United States, E Pluribus Unum--from many, one-- is incorporated into the Great Seal of the United States, is printed on U.S. currency, and inscribed on the wall of the Senate Chamber. The sponsors of this resolution use these examples to argue that from many languages and backgrounds we have one language--English. However, our Nation's motto is written in Latin--not English. The translation of key statements of national unity, such as the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem, affords immigrants who have not fully learned the English language and individuals from all across the world the opportunity to better understand these symbols of America and the ideals of freedom that they represent. Such translations help those outside the U.S. to better understand our culture and our beliefs. Last June, the Pew Global Attitudes Project released a report on America's image. Survey results from the citizens of 16 nations found that only six nations, one of which is the U.S., have a 50 percent or more favorable view of the United States. We cannot win the hearts and minds of people of other nations and promote American ideals if we close the door on people expressing their support for our country and the freedoms on which it was founded. Our Constitution grants us the freedom of speech. This resolution, by limiting the language in which we can recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the National Anthem, violates the spirit of the Constitution and is antithetical to the very freedoms and beliefs that these statements of national unity represent. To limit the ability of non-English speakers to know about the United States and, in turn, show their support for the U.S., would be a disservice to the country. Since this resolution is non-binding I will not object to it being acted upon by the Senate. However, I do not support the resolution.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to protect the state home program and expand the ability of states and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to care for veterans. I truly believe that the state home program is an incredibly valuable asset as we grapple with how best to care for our aging veterans. The program has proven time and time again that it is cost effective. VA involvement in the state home program dates back to 1888 when Congress first authorized Federal grants-in-aid for veterans in State homes. Today, there are 119 State-operated Veterans' Homes in 47 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. State homes provide nursing home care in 114 of these homes and domiciliary care in 52 of these locations. As many of my colleagues know, the State home program is supported in two ways by VA--construction grants and per diem payments. Subject to available funding, VA provides construction matching-grant funding for up to 65 percent of the cost of constructing or rehabilitating homes, with at least 35 percent covered by State funding commitments. The per diem portion of the program provides current reimbursement to State homes--currently $63.40 for a day of nursing home care. This amount equates to less than 30 percent of the total cost to provide this care. Yet, VA is currently authorized to provide up to 50 percent of States' costs. In January of this year, Chairman Craig and I held field hearings in my State of Hawaii. The hearing on the island of Kauai focused exclusively on long-term care in rural settings. We heard from two witnesses who spoke about the benefits of the State home program and ways to improve upon it, so as to specifically care for rural veterans. Tom Driskill, the President and CEO of Hawaii Health Systems Corporation, testified about the soon-to-be-built State home in Hilo. He said, ``The synergy of a combined Federal and State funding of the home has been the catalyst for making this dream a reality.'' The Hilo home will be Hawaii's first State home and will house 95 beds and will serve veterans throughout the State. The Committee also heard testimony about an innovative approach to fill significant gaps in long-term care services to veterans due to the nature and geography of certain States. Bob Shaw, the National Legislative Chairman for the National Association of State Veterans' Homes, testified that large State homes are not appropriate for the more remote locations in Hawaii. Instead, he argued, we should look to how Alaska has managed the challenge. Rather than building large new homes, the State of Alaska is using its own Pioneer Homes, which provide nursing care to older Alaskans, in order to care for veterans. Similarly, Hawaii could use existing beds in the community and deem such beds as part of the State home program. Doing so would trigger per diem payments from VA to help defray the cost of nursing home care. Accordingly, my legislation would authorize VA to provide construction grants and per diem payments for small long-term care units, approximately 10 to 30 beds, in pre-existing health care facilities. Such units would address gaps in long-term care services for veterans living in remote and rural regions including Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Kansas and other large, rural States. I am quite proud of the changes we made to VA long-term care as part of the Millennium Act, which provides nursing home care to veterans who are 70 percent or more service-connected. I think we can expand the locations where such mandatory nursing home care is available. Currently, there is no mechanism in current law to permit VA to pay State homes for care provided to service-connected veterans. My legislation would authorize VA to place severely disabled service- connected veterans directly in State homes and would require VA to reimburse State homes for the cost of such care. The legislation would also authorize severely disabled, service- connected veterans in State homes to receive VA's comprehensive medication benefit. Currently, such veterans are eligible to receive VA's full medication benefit if they are residing in community nursing homes but not if they reside in State homes. We need to ensure equitable coverage of medication needs. Finally, this legislation mandates consultation and reporting requirements for VA prior to implementation of proposed changes to the current per diem system. Such requirements should include, at a minimum, consultations with Congress, State governments, and State homes. In addition, VA should be required to report to Congress how any such proposed changes would affect the long-term viability of the State home program before any such changes take effect. As part of the FY 06 budget, the Administration proposed dramatic restrictions to current per diem payments so as to only include a small portion of the veterans currently in State homes. Such a proposal, if enacted, would have devastated care in the homes. Mr. President, we can give States and VA more tools to deal with burgeoning long-term care needs of veterans. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following this statement.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Mr. John Fales for receiving the American Legion National Commander's Public Relations Award for 2006. John has a long and distinguished military career and has continued his service to this great Nation as an unwavering supporter of veterans as a journalist and advocate. During his military career, John served more than 27 years on active duty for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. He is highly decorated with awards including the Purple Heart, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Service Medal, New York State Conspicuous Service Medal, Presidential Unit Citation, Combat Action Ribbon, and South Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He earned these decorations as he defended our Nation's freedoms and liberties. Today, John helps our veterans access care and benefits. To the many readers of his column, he is known as Sergeant Shaft, the witty newspaper columnist that provides information affecting the veterans' community. His column helps veterans and their families navigate the highly complicated VA system to obtain the care and benefits they have earned through their service. John is also the president of the Blinded American Veterans Foundation which advocates for sensory disabled veterans and provides outreach efforts to ensure sensory disabled veterans are able to lead productive lives. John Fales's service and patriotism are beyond question. He is a deserving recipient of the American Legion National Commander's Public Relations Award for 2006. Once again, I congratulate John for his commendation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in response to my good friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Tennessee, who spoke about legislation that is critical to the people of Hawaii, S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. S. 147 would extend the Federal policy of self-governance and self- determination to Hawaii's indigenous peoples, the native Hawaiians, by authorizing a process for the reorganization of a native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a government-to-government relationship with the United States. My colleague raised the actions by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights last week. The Commission issued a report in opposition to S. 147. The report was based on a briefing that was conducted on January 20, 2006. I am seriously concerned about the lack of objectivity in the Commission's review. The Commission never contacted its Hawaii advisory committee, which includes members who are experts in Hawaii's history and Indian law. Not once was the advisory committee informed of the briefing or allowed to contribute to the Commission's report. Further, despite the fact that the Commission was provided with the substitute amendment which reflects negotiations with the executive branch, the Commission chose to issue its report based on the bill as reported out of committee. The substitute amendment to S. 147 will be offered when we consider the bill and reflects negotiations with the officials from the Department of Justice, Office of Management and Budget, and the White House. The substitute amendment satisfactorily addresses the concerns expressed by the Bush administration regarding the liability of the U.S. Government, military readiness, civil and criminal jurisdiction, and gaming. The amendment has been publicly available since September 2005 and has been widely distributed. I applaud the efforts of Commissioners Arlen Melendez and Michael Yaki who voted in opposition to the report and tried to inject objectivity and fairness into this process. It really saddens me when an independent commission begins to act in a politically motivated manner. Despite this fact, I remain committed to my constituents and the people of Hawaii. I will continue to work to bring this bill to the Senate floor as it has been promised by the majority leader and the junior Senator from Arizona. The people of Hawaii deserve no less than a debate and a vote on an issue of critical importance to them and to their State. When I first started my career in Congress over 30 years ago, there was a protocol and a courtesy. If legislation was going to impact a particular State, and the leaders of that State all supported the issue, it was protocol that other Members would not interfere or obstruct efforts to legislate on behalf of that State. Unfortunately, this longstanding protocol and courtesy, I am ashamed to say, no longer exists. S. 147 is widely supported in Hawaii--widely supported in Hawaii. The bill enjoys the bipartisan support of my colleagues, Senators Cantwell, Coleman, Dodd, Dorgan, Graham, Inouye, Murkowski, Smith, and Stevens. It is strongly supported by Hawaii's first Republican Governor in 40 years, Linda Lingle. She supports this bill. It is supported strongly by Hawaii's State Legislature which has passed three resolutions in favor of extending the Federal policy of self-governance and self- determination to native Hawaiians. It is supported by almost every single political leader in Hawaii. S. 147 is also supported by native Hawaiians and non-native Hawaiians. Why, you might ask? Because in Hawaii, native Hawaiian issues are nonpartisan. We have tremendous respect for the indigenous peoples who have shared their lands, traditions, and cultures with the rest of us. Mr. President, I have been patient, and the people of Hawaii have been patient. For the past 3 years, the majority and Democratic leaders have been working with me to uphold a commitment that was made at the end of the 108th Congress that we would consider and vote on this bill. Unfortunately--again, unfortunately--their efforts have been thwarted by a handful of colleagues who have taken it upon themselves to block this bill despite the widespread support from the State of Hawaii. After 7 years of delay by a few of my colleagues, it is time we are provided with the opportunity to debate this bill in the open. I will be coming to the floor to talk about my bill every day until we begin debate on the bill. I will use every day to talk about what my bill does and does not do and to respond to the outright untruths that have been spread about the legislation. I will use every day to help share Hawaii's history with my colleagues as the opponents of this legislation have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the tragedies of Hawaii's history in a manner that suits them for the purposes of opposing this legislation. I am deeply saddened by their tactics, but I am committed to ensuring that the Members of this body and all of the citizens in the United States understand Hawaii's history and the importance of extending the Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Hawaii's indigenous peoples, the native Hawaiians.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise with my good friend and colleague, Senator Craig from Idaho, to introduce legislation to establish at least five Amputation and Prosthetic Rehabilitation Centers within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Through progressive and specialized expertise in the area of prosthetics and rehabilitation, the visible reminders of the sacrifices made by our wounded warriors will become less evident and hopefully less of a factor in their everyday lives. Specialty care for amputees has become an even more pressing concern because of the types of injuries our brave soldiers have sustained in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Many would agree that this is not the same kind of war that other generations of veterans have fought. The use of body armor and improvements in battlefield medicine have saved more lives, but in many cases have left our soldiers with traumatic injuries. Servicemembers in the current conflicts have suffered from twice as many amputations as those who fought in past wars. Unfortunately, the incidence of multiple amputations from bomb blasts is higher in this war. The VA health care system has only begun to see the men and women from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom who are in need of long-term rehabilitation. Indeed, these veterans are young and plan on being active for a long time. VA is well poised to take on this challenge. An ongoing study at the Providence VA hospital is looking at ``biohybrid'' limbs which are implanted into tissue and later become an integral part of the patient. We cannot, however, forget about the war our current veterans continue to fight everyday against time and their health. Veterans struggling with diseases such as diabetes are often faced with amputation. The establishment of the Amputation and Prosthetic Rehabilitation Centers will provide advanced care to those who have endured the loss of a limb, which will help them regain full function and a better quality of life. The centers will provide VA regional clinical facilities with cutting edge expertise in prosthetics, rehabilitation with the use of prosthetics, treatment, and coordination of care for a veteran with an amputation. By placing these centers in locations with the highest concentrations of veterans, those in need will truly benefit from these specialized services. VA has always been a leader in progressive treatment and care. These centers will maintain VA as a leader by providing the tools and staff necessary to do so. The legislation requires that the centers must have a well-equipped and appropriately certified laboratory facility necessary to provide the most state-of-the-art and complex prosthetic devices. With experienced prosthetists trained and certified in the area of new techniques, an accredited Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation service with trained staff in the most current prosthetic services, and a permanent modern gait laboratory located within each center, veterans are sure to receive the most advanced treatment and care. A critical part of this legislation is that these centers will serve as resources for smaller VA hospitals which may not have all of the expertise but will certainly have the patients. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge my colleagues to join Chairman Craig and myself in support of providing treatment to those in need so they can stand on their own.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise proudly today to introduce legislation that would provide assistance to those who care for our Nation's veterans. These caregivers provide a great service to our country and play a vital role in providing non-institutional long-term health care for veterans. There is deep concern regarding the anticipated number of veterans that will need long-term care by the year 2010. In 2005, there were almost one million veterans age 85 and over, and by 2010, it is anticipated that the number of veterans in this age category will grow to 1.3 million. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will be faced with a crisis related to the demand for care of this population, and we must help VA prepare for this situation. VA has been disturbingly inactive in instituting the long-term care provisions of the 1999 Millennium Health Care Act. The General Accounting Office has been the most critical, citing major inconsistencies across the VA system in the implementation of non- institutional care. During the Committee on Veterans' Affairs' oversight work in Hawaii, we found that the Kauai clinic lacked a home care specialist and the Maui clinic was arbitrarily limiting non- institutional care. Caregivers are crucial in bridging these gaps in non-institutional long-term care services. With more veterans returning from combat with severely debilitating injuries, young spouses and parents have been forced to take on an unexpected role as caregivers. Many have interrupted their own careers to dedicate time and attention to the care and rehabilitation of loved ones. These caregivers do not plan for this to happen and are not prepared mentally or financially for their new role. Therefore, we must protect, educate, and lend a helping hand to the caregivers who take on the responsibility and costly burden of caring for veterans, both young and old. This legislation serves to provide comprehensive assistance to these caregivers. By providing such services as respite care, caregivers can have time to run errands and attend to their own health concerns. They can rest easier knowing that there is someone there to care for their disabled veteran while they are out. Another service provided through this legislation is adult-day care for veterans. This serves a dual purpose in that it provides short-term supervision and also gives veterans a place to go for some camaraderie. The last years of a veteran's life can be difficult for both the veteran and for the caregiver. This legislation would also provide hospice services so that this period is one of peace and comfort. Other services that would support caregivers under this legislation include education, training, transportation services, readjustment services, rehabilitation services, home care services, and any other new and innovative modalities of non-institutional long-term care. I cannot try to quantify the invaluable service that caregivers provide. What can be done is to make funds available to carry out programs to assist them. The legislation authorizes $10 million to be allocated to individual medical facilities within VA, especially to those in rural areas without a long-term care facility, based upon the proposals submitted by the facilities. In efforts to evaluate the improvements made in caregiver assistance services, a report shall be submitted to Congress by the Secretary no later than a year after enactment of this bill. The report should include information on the allocation of funds to facilities and a description of the improvements made with the funds. Let us meet these caregivers halfway by giving them the assistance they need to care for the veterans that depend on them. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.