Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the other amendment accepts the administration's estimate, which already looks wrong. Funding is added for vet centers and rehabilitative care--two accounts which did not fare well under the proposed budget. Both programs are critically important. Vet centers are the first place returning servicemembers go for care. Yet vet centers have continually been underfunded. Again, the alternative amendment provides not one penny more than the administration. The amendment also provides funds to allow for a substantial increase in mental health care. Experts predict that as many as 30 percent of those returning servicemembers may need some kind of mental health care treatment, from basic readjustment counseling to care for debilitating PTSD. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 35 percent of Iraq veterans received mental health care during their first year home. Our amendment adds $321 million for mental health care. Again, the opposing amendment chooses to rely on the administration's estimate, despite these recent findings. Each year the Congress debates its priorities and concerns for our Nation through the budgetary process. This is one of the few times the citizens of this country can cut through the rhetoric and the complicated legislative maneuvers to see what each of us truly stands for. This budget is a good starting point for our veterans, but we certainly can and should do more. At this time I yield to the Senator from Washington, my good friend, Senator Murray.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask for additional time to complete my statement.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand here with my colleagues who join me in offering this veterans health care amendment which adds $1.5 billion for health care. What we have before us are two different approaches, similar to what we had last year. I want to take my colleagues back a year when we offered a similar amendment to the budget resolution at that time. We argued that more attention must be given to mental health, prosthetics, and to keeping veterans from being homeless. The opposition questioned our number, as there was the belief that the VA could continue providing quality care with fewer resources. And that belief prevailed. Our amendment was rejected at that time, virtually along party lines. The prevailing votes were misled to believe that the budget year was too tight and that a much smaller amount of funding was needed. Unfortunately, this turned out to be the wrong course. Four months and two supplemental requests later we finally ended up with more funding, nearly the exact amount we advocated for earlier in the year. We must not repeat this mistake and we must get it right the first time. I want to say at the outset that the President's budget is much more robust than his budget last year. The veterans called last year's budget ``tight-fisted'' and ``miserly.'' I view this budget as a much better starting point. What is again missing--in dollars and in deed--is this administration still does not count caring for veterans as part of the cost of war. Defense spending for our servicemembers while in combat has necessarily gone up; accordingly, so must our commitment to caring for our veterans once they return home. We are all too familiar with the scenario last year. You remember the VA wildly underestimated the number of younger vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. And this year, the administration thinks even fewer vets will come for care. This is a terrific gamble, as this miscalculation was one of the primary causes of last year's shortfall. While I largely agree with the President on the overall amount needed for VA health care this year, I take issue with how he chooses to fund the system. Let's make this crystal clear: The administration's approach and the resolution that is before us asks veterans to pay more for their care through increased copayments for medications and a new user fee for middle-income veterans. Our approach instead asks for appropriated dollars. Middle-income veterans will see their prescription drug bills doubled, and it forces veterans to pay a $250 fee for simply choosing VA as their health care provider. With these substantial new out-of- pocket costs, the administration is banking on 200,000 veterans being unable to afford VA care. Many have argued that a user fee imposed upon middle-income veterans is only fair. They say it equates to a modest sum each month. If my friend, Lou Green, a veteran from the Korean war, living in New Jersey on a fixed income, could stand here, he would ask which of his monthly expenses would we have him forgo. If these proposals were enacted, his five prescriptions would add $35 per month, and the new fee would add $21 per month. This would bring his new expenses to $670 a year. He would have to choose which bills to pay. Would it be his medications? Would it be his gas bills for his car? Would it be the cost of heating his home? What we have heard much about is that the VA is already adequately funded. The administration, and my friends on the other side of the aisle, are claiming a 50-percent increase in veteran spending since the year 2001. Let there be no mistake: It is in fact Congress that has done the heavy lifting. Each year, it is the veterans' leaders in the Senate and House who go beyond what President Bush has proposed. The simple fact is that the administration has requested less than half of the new funding made available to veterans during its tenure. Congress, by approving amendments to increase VA funding, has added another 39 percent of funding. Even with large increases since fiscal year 2001 this is an average increase of less than 10 percent to accommodate high medical care inflation and a high annual growth in patients. The growth in the number of patients is almost twice the amount in resources. These facts underscore the need to support my amendment. Our amendment would add $1.5 billion to the resolution in real money by closing tax loopholes. The Burns amendment is merely a budget gimmick which fails to raise the top line for VA funding. I would like to elaborate on how our $1.5 billion number was arrived at, and you can see it on this chart. We add $825 million to reject the policy proposals--the copay increase and enrollment fee. In addition, there is a seldom-talked- about proposal to discontinue the practice of using insurance moneys to offset out-of-pocket costs for veterans. Each of these proposals must be rejected. It seems shortsighted and cruel to enact proposals which will drive veterans out of the VA health care system. The VA also requires funding to absorb new patient workload from new veterans returning home from both Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom and from older veterans who are just now turning to the VA. In the first quarter of this year, the VA saw a 21-percent increase in OIF/OEF veterans seeking VA care. They are now seeing 144,424 OIF/OEF veterans total. This is 32 percent more than they project for fiscal year 2007. Our amendment adds $231 million, taking into account that new veterans are eligible for 2 years of VA care immediately upon their return and separation from service.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Rockefeller, Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, Dodd, Bingaman, and Lautenberg as cosponsors to amendment No. 3007.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 3007 and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I say to my friends, the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Idaho, that we agree that veterans need quality care and services, but we differ on how much to provide for this care and who is eligible. I believe all veterans deserve access to quality care. I also believe that we must make this a priority. I say again to my friends, VA health care should grow, and that is not a bad reality. We spend exorbitant amounts on these men and women while they are in active service. They deserve our care when they are done serving. The budget has gone up. Let's think about what we have purchased with that budget: hundreds of new clinics, hundreds of thousands who never had insurance and who can now come to the VA for world-class care, a leading research program, and a system where care is second to none. Let's not deny that health care costs money. We agree on that. Indeed, there is an increase in the VA budget, but it undercounts the number of returning service members. It does not do enough for mental health, and it flat lines rehabilitation care. As I have said, we are pleased that the President's budget is much better than last year's. This is not a bidding war; this is getting it right. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time on this amendment to Senator Murray.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we must go beyond what his amendment seeks to accomplish. In a few minutes, we will begin discussion of our alternative amendment. Our amendment would provide the funds to ensure that veterans will not see their out-of-pocket costs increase. Our amendment would add resources to care for newly returning servicemembers. Our amendment would shore up the system for all veterans needing mental health care. The Burns amendment is based on the premise that the President's budget is ``good enough.'' The opposition urges veterans to be pleased that they are getting an increase at all in this tough budget climate. In my view, especially in this time of war with so many competing demands, we can and should do much better. Veterans should not have to ``get what we give them.'' They ought to be provided with what they deserve. Let us not forget the sacrifices made by these men and women and the sacrifices made by their families. What we have heard much about is that VA is already adequately funded. The administration, and my friends on the other side of the aisle, continually cite a 50-percent increase in veterans spending since the year 2001. I applaud my colleagues for their support of veterans as demand for VA's top-quality health care services has increased. It only makes sense for spending on veterans programs to increase in accordance with the increases we have seen in the defense budget, particularly since Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Colleagues, these increased costs for veterans are a direct result of our global war on terrorism. As we so willingly fund them while they are on active duty, we must be willing to fund taking care of them after they have served our great Nation. Let there be no mistake, it is, in fact, Congress that has done the heavy lifting. Each year, it is the veterans' leaders in the Senate and the House who go beyond what President Bush has proposed. I do not say this to laud Congress. I say it to remind my colleagues that we need to make veterans a priority. We need to make sure veterans are taken care of. Veterans are looking to us to make a difference, and we cannot let them down. The opposition warns that too many veterans are eligible for VA care and too many are depending upon VA for help. I take a different approach. I am thrilled that veterans are turning to VA for their care. For years, we struggled to make the VA health care system something to be proud of. And it has accomplished that. It is highly rated. It seems cruel now to tell veterans: Now that VA care is good, we are going to force you out. We must go beyond ``good enough.'' I urge my colleagues to support our alternative amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the amendment offered by my friend, Senator Burns.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to respond to a statement made by my good friend, Senator Burns.

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he needs to Senator Salazar of Colorado.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman in introducing a bill to transfer the authority of reviewing foreign investment in the United States to the Department of Homeland Security and to impose additional structure and increase congressional oversight on the review process. There has been a failure in Government procedure that must be corrected, and this legislation will address those procedural failures. I am concerned that our process to review acquisitions, mergers or takeovers of U.S. corporations by foreign entities that ``may'' pose a national security threat, did not trigger the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, to conduct a more thorough review. While the United Arab Emirates has supported the United States in the war against terrorism, its past activities related to terrorist groups should have triggered CFIUS to conduct a more thorough review. More specifically, the act states that if there is an acquisition, merger, or takeover of a U.S. corporation by a foreign entity, then CFIUS, an interagency committee chaired by the Secretary of Treasury, reviews the deal to ascertain if there is any threat to our national security. In addition, in accordance with Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993, called the Byrd amendment, amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act, the Exon-Florio provision, a more extensive review should have been conducted on the Dubai Ports World deal, especially since certain members of CFIUS did have national security concerns about the acquisition. Given the questionable interpretation by CFIUS on the Byrd amendment, I believe it is important for Congress to revisit the act and clarify the provisions that require CFIUS to conduct a thorough review of foreign acquisitions, mergers, and takeovers. Our legislation removes any ambiguity by specifically requiring an investigation any time a foreign government-owned corporation is involved in a transaction. As ranking member on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, it is my responsibility to evaluate governmental processes and develop solutions that ensure our national and homeland security while maintaining the favorable promotion of foreign investments in the United States. I was pleased to work with Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, respectively, on drafting the legislation to address these process shortcomings, which will promote reasonable transparency and oversight within the foreign investment review process. The security of U.S. ports is of great concern to me because my home State of Hawaii receives 98 percent of its imports via sea-based transportation. Given the national and homeland security implications of the proposed DP World takeover, I believe it is absolutely necessary for Congress to ensure that the executive branch performs a rigorous review of the transaction. Our bill ensures that Congress is informed of pending investigations that may impact national or homeland security prior to the President making a decision whether to disapprove the transaction. I believe that additional intelligence community resources should have been drawn upon before the President made his determination to support the transaction. There should have been a consolidated intelligence assessment, and this report should have been provided to all senior members of the review committee. The bill we introduce today requires consolidated intelligence assessments to be developed by the Director of National Intelligence and provided to all review committee members, thereby ensuring that all members are sufficiently informed. I was also disturbed that two of the reviewing Departments--the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security--do not currently have internal written instructions on their review processes. How do we know that adequate reviews of foreign investment in the United States are being conducted by these two critical CFIUS members if a systematic and documented process, subject to audit, does not exist? Our legislation requires the development and documentation of internal procedures to ensure that all reviewing members use a standardized process while conducting their review of foreign investment proposals. Mr. President, I am pleased that Dubai Ports World is attempting to address the concerns of the American public. However, this problem is bigger than just a single transaction, which is why we are introducing this legislation today. I am honored to cosponsor, with Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, this bill which reforms the process of reviewing foreign investment in the United States.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman in introducing a bill to transfer the authority of reviewing foreign investment in the United States to the Department of Homeland Security and to impose additional structure and increase congressional oversight on the review process. There has been a failure in Government procedure that must be corrected, and this legislation will address those procedural failures. I am concerned that our process to review acquisitions, mergers or takeovers of U.S. corporations by foreign entities that ``may'' pose a national security threat, did not trigger the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, to conduct a more thorough review. While the United Arab Emirates has supported the United States in the war against terrorism, its past activities related to terrorist groups should have triggered CFIUS to conduct a more thorough review. More specifically, the act states that if there is an acquisition, merger, or takeover of a U.S. corporation by a foreign entity, then CFIUS, an interagency committee chaired by the Secretary of Treasury, reviews the deal to ascertain if there is any threat to our national security. In addition, in accordance with Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993, called the Byrd amendment, amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act, the Exon-Florio provision, a more extensive review should have been conducted on the Dubai Ports World deal, especially since certain members of CFIUS did have national security concerns about the acquisition. Given the questionable interpretation by CFIUS on the Byrd amendment, I believe it is important for Congress to revisit the act and clarify the provisions that require CFIUS to conduct a thorough review of foreign acquisitions, mergers, and takeovers. Our legislation removes any ambiguity by specifically requiring an investigation any time a foreign government-owned corporation is involved in a transaction. As ranking member on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, it is my responsibility to evaluate governmental processes and develop solutions that ensure our national and homeland security while maintaining the favorable promotion of foreign investments in the United States. I was pleased to work with Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, respectively, on drafting the legislation to address these process shortcomings, which will promote reasonable transparency and oversight within the foreign investment review process. The security of U.S. ports is of great concern to me because my home State of Hawaii receives 98 percent of its imports via sea-based transportation. Given the national and homeland security implications of the proposed DP World takeover, I believe it is absolutely necessary for Congress to ensure that the executive branch performs a rigorous review of the transaction. Our bill ensures that Congress is informed of pending investigations that may impact national or homeland security prior to the President making a decision whether to disapprove the transaction. I believe that additional intelligence community resources should have been drawn upon before the President made his determination to support the transaction. There should have been a consolidated intelligence assessment, and this report should have been provided to all senior members of the review committee. The bill we introduce today requires consolidated intelligence assessments to be developed by the Director of National Intelligence and provided to all review committee members, thereby ensuring that all members are sufficiently informed. I was also disturbed that two of the reviewing Departments--the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security--do not currently have internal written instructions on their review processes. How do we know that adequate reviews of foreign investment in the United States are being conducted by these two critical CFIUS members if a systematic and documented process, subject to audit, does not exist? Our legislation requires the development and documentation of internal procedures to ensure that all reviewing members use a standardized process while conducting their review of foreign investment proposals. Mr. President, I am pleased that Dubai Ports World is attempting to address the concerns of the American public. However, this problem is bigger than just a single transaction, which is why we are introducing this legislation today. I am honored to cosponsor, with Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, this bill which reforms the process of reviewing foreign investment in the United States.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for this time. Mr. President, on behalf of my wife Millie and my entire family, I rise to express our sincere sympathies, our deepest condolences, and our warmest aloha to my dear friend and my colleague, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, for the loss of his lovely wife Maggie, who passed away this afternoon. Over the past year, whenever I spoke to Senator Inouye, I would ask him about Maggie, and his reply to me was: She is a trooper. She is doing the best she can. And that really sums up it so well about Maggie. Maggie was definitely a trooper. She was a wonderful, wonderful lady who served our country as a Senate spouse for the past 40-plus years. Maggie was a classy woman who was well respected everywhere she went. She had a heart of gold and will definitely be missed by the people of Hawaii and the families here in Washington, DC. My thoughts and prayers go to Senator Inouye, to his son Kenny and his wife, their extended family, and all of the Inouye staff here and in Hawaii. We stand waiting to do whatever we can to help in this difficult time. We will miss Maggie. May Maggie's soul rest in peace.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we must enact my legislation, S. 2305, to repeal a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act that will require people applying or reapplying for Medicaid to verify their citizenship with a U.S. passport or birth certificate. Congress must act to repeal this shortsighted policy before it goes into effect July 1, 2006, because it will create barriers to health care, is unnecessary, and will be an administrative burden to implement. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional letters of support for S. 2305 from the California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the National Health Law Program, Families USA, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the American Public Health Association, be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I oppose the conference report for H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. This bill does not protect the cherished civil liberties and freedoms of the American people. I voted for the PATRIOT Act in 2001. I believed then, as I do now, that we must give our Government the tools it needs to fight, detect, and deter terrorist acts. While I had reservations about the PATRIOT Act and the possibility that it would allow the Government to infringe upon our privacy rights and civil liberties, I supported the bill since the more controversial provisions were not made permanent. Granting the Government this time-limited authority allowed Congress an opportunity to review how these broad new grants of power were being used. Unfortunately, the administration has been less than forthcoming in disclosing how the PATRIOT Act has been used. According to the reports we have received, the Government has used the PATRIOT Act to: investigate and prosecute crimes that are not terrorism offenses; investigate individuals without having any cause to believe the person is involved in terrorist activities; and coerce Internet Service Providers, ISP, to turn over information about email activity and web surfing while preventing the ISP from disclosing this abuse to the public. This information is disturbing and may be indicative of other abuses that the Justice Department has not told us about. Given these abuses, meaningful checks and balances on the Government's authority to investigate Americans are essential. Last July the Senate agreed by unanimous consent to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act with substantially stronger protections in place. However, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives objected to the Senate bill and tried to pass a conference report lacking the protections that the Senate insisted upon. Last month, a compromise bill was introduced, S. 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006. I voted for S. 2271 because it is an improvement over the PATRIOT Act. Any improvement is good. However, S. 2271 does not go far enough to correct the flaws in the PATRIOT Act and convince me that the changes made to the underlying bill will preserve our civil liberties. S. 2271 will make explicit the right to counsel and the right to challenge in court an order from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, to turn over records sought in an intelligence investigation, called section 215 orders, but it does not correct the underlying standard for issuing these orders. As such, the FBI, after going before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, Court, can demand a wide array of personal information--including medical, financial, library, and bookstore and gun purchase records--about an individual without any cause to believe the person is involved in terrorist activities. S. 2271 does provide an express right to challenge the gag order that accompanies a Section 215 order, but only after waiting a year. However, if the Government certifies that the disclosure would harm national security, the gag order cannot be lifted. S. 2271 would also remove the conference report's language requiring recipients of National Security Letters, NSLs, to inform the FBI of the name of any attorney they consult about the demand for financial or Internet records. NSLs can be issued without FISA Court review. Again the bill still does not require that there be any connection between the records sought by the FBI and a suspected foreign terrorist or person in contact with such a target. This is especially troubling since news reports show that 30,000 NSLs are issued by the Government per year, a hundred-fold annual increase since the PATRIOT Act relaxed requirements on the FBI's use of the power. In 2003, the State legislature in my home State of Hawaii passed a resolution reaffirming its commitment to civil liberties and called the entire Hawaii congressional delegation to repeal any sections of the PATRIOT Act that limit or violate fundamental rights and liberties protected by the Constitution of the United States. In good conscience I cannot vote to support the PATRIOT Act because I believe that it allows the Government to infringe upon the rights and protections we hold most dear. I do not believe that the PATRIOT Act makes our Nation safer. It makes our country weaker by eroding the very freedoms that define us. As Thomas Jefferson said, ``The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.'' I am afraid that by passing this legislation today we will in fact have neither a more secure nation nor the freedoms for which we are fighting.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to voice my strong support as an original cosponsor of The College Pathway Act, introduced by my colleagues from Connecticut and Maine, Senators Lieberman and Snowe. I greatly appreciate their foresight in creating legislation that will help Hawaii and other states bring greater links between education at all levels, as well as with business and industry. I know the field of education well, having served as a teacher, vice principal, principal, and school administrator in Hawaii before holding public office. I taught at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels, and continue to hold great interest in developments in these areas, as well as in early childhood and higher education. From these experiences, I have advocated that education should be an interconnected pathway, from pre-kindergarten through postsecondary levels and beyond, into the workforce. We need all stakeholders in education and the labor force to work together, seamlessly. The Lieberman-Snowe bill will help to further this very aim in Hawaii and other States with existing entities, and to assist other States in meeting similar, meaningful goals through the creation of similar entities. By encouraging States to establish P-16, or as in Hawaii's case, P-20 commissions, to align lower, middle, and high school curricular and assessment standards with what is expected in higher education, we will better assure college readiness and reach a fundamental goal: greater rates of college completion. To describe the Hawaii P-20 initiative in more detail, the initiative brings together public and private educators at all levels, working in collaboration with representatives of state government, the business community, labor, and educational support agencies to focus on improving learner achievement. Its vision statement says, all Hawaii residents will be educated, caring, self-sufficient, and able to contribute to their families, to the economy, and to the common good, and will be encouraged to continue learning throughout their lives. The initiative, which recently unveiled its strategic plan, is a joint commitment of the Hawaii Department of Education, the Good Beginnings Alliance, and the University of Hawaii, working with a statewide P-20 Council to develop a seamless system of educational delivery. I encourage anyone with interest in this effort to view the details of the plan at www.p20hawaii.org. A main goal of the initiative is to prepare my State's learners to succeed in a society fast becoming more global, technological and complex. Ultimately, it seeks to improve the quality of life for all of Hawaii. I am pleased to support this effort and work toward providing this and similar programs in other states with the resources to achieve their aims. The Lieberman-Snowe bill does this, and I look forward to working with my colleagues toward its enactment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, every year, members of the Hawaii Credit Union League meet with me during their trip to Washington, DC. They keep me abreast of their work in Hawaii by providing affordable financial services to their members. I would like to recognize credit unions and other mainstream financial services organizations that provide access to financial services that improve the lives of their members. Without credit unions, even more of our constituents would be susceptible to predatory lending and high-cost financial services. For example, individuals that lack credit union or bank accounts are considered to be unbanked. The unbanked rely on alternative financial service providers to cash checks, pay bills, send remittances, utilize payday loans, and obtain credit. However, their earnings are unnecessarily diminished in the process by their reliance on these high-cost, and often predatory, financial services. These hardworking families can ill-afford this hit to their paychecks. Not having a credit union or bank account prevents families from being able to save securely to prepare for the loss of a job, a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or education expenses for their children. I am proud that we have credit unions in Hawaii that provide innovative services to more effectively meet the needs of their members such as offering payday loan alternatives to members of the armed services. Payday loans are small cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Typically, the principal for payday loans is in the range of $100 to $500 with full payment due in 2 weeks. Finance charges on payday loans are normally in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed, which translates into triple digit interest rates of 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate, APR. A common practice is loan flipping, which is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. This practice often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break. Furthermore payday lenders often locate near military bases because they know that a military servicemember's government paychecks represent a reliable source of fees and military personnel may be court marshaled or dishonorably discharged for failing to repay their debt. I am proud that the Windward Community Federal Credit Union in Kailua, on the island of Oahu, has developed an affordable alternative to payday loans. I commend the staff of the Windward Community Federal Credit Union for their outstanding program which benefits the marines and other members that they serve. I have introduced legislation that would encourage credit unions and other financial institutions to offer this sort of low-cost, short-term credit product. S. 1347, the Low-Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act, would promote low-cost alternatives to payday loans by authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to award demonstration project grants. I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee to enact this important legislation. I also have included efforts to increase access to credit union and bank accounts in an attempt to combat refund anticipation loans, RALs. While the earned income tax credit, EITC, helps working families meet their food, clothing, housing, transportation, and education needs, EITC refunds are unnecessarily diminished by excessive use of RALs. Interest rates on RALs can range from 97 percent to more than 2,000 percent. Considering the low repayment risk of this type of loan, the interest rates and fees charged on this type of product are not justified. Often, those who take out RALs are lower income families for whom these costs are a particular burden. I have introduced the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act, which would restrict predatory practices associated with RALs and expand access to mainstream financial services. The bill would expand the eligibility of electronic transfer accounts, ETA, which are low-cost accounts at banks and credit unions intended for recipients of certain Federal benefit payments, to include EITC benefits. These accounts will allow taxpayers to receive direct deposit refunds into an account without the need for a refund anticipation loan. Additionally, my bill would mandate that low- and moderate-income taxpayers be provided opportunities to open low-cost accounts at federally insured banks or credit unions via appropriate tax forms. Providing taxpayers with the option of opening a bank or credit union account through the use of tax forms provides an alternative to RALs and immediate access to financial opportunities found at banks and credit unions. In addition, I have worked with my friend, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, on the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act. The legislation includes a provision that authorizes a grant program to link tax preparation services with the opening of a bank or credit union account. This will help encourage the estimated four million unbanked EITC recipients to establish a relationship with a mainstream financial institution. In turn, they will no longer be forced to pay the excessive fees RAL providers assess. Once the previously unbanked have established a credit union or bank account, they will be able to benefit from the wide range of financial services that mainstream financial institutions provide. I will continue to work to expand access to mainstream financial institutions so that more individuals can benefit from lower cost opportunities found at credit unions and banks. I thank the representatives from the Hawaii Credit Union League for all of their work in providing financial services and increasing the financial literacy knowledge of their members. I also will continue to work to enact legislation that promotes the utilization of the services of credit unions and banks so that even more people can improve their lives by having access to low-cost accounts, cheaper remittances, less expensive loans, and insured savings accounts.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to voice my strong support as an original cosponsor of The College Pathway Act, introduced by my colleagues from Connecticut and Maine, Senators Lieberman and Snowe. I greatly appreciate their foresight in creating legislation that will help Hawaii and other states bring greater links between education at all levels, as well as with business and industry. I know the field of education well, having served as a teacher, vice principal, principal, and school administrator in Hawaii before holding public office. I taught at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels, and continue to hold great interest in developments in these areas, as well as in early childhood and higher education. From these experiences, I have advocated that education should be an interconnected pathway, from pre-kindergarten through postsecondary levels and beyond, into the workforce. We need all stakeholders in education and the labor force to work together, seamlessly. The Lieberman-Snowe bill will help to further this very aim in Hawaii and other States with existing entities, and to assist other States in meeting similar, meaningful goals through the creation of similar entities. By encouraging States to establish P-16, or as in Hawaii's case, P-20 commissions, to align lower, middle, and high school curricular and assessment standards with what is expected in higher education, we will better assure college readiness and reach a fundamental goal: greater rates of college completion. To describe the Hawaii P-20 initiative in more detail, the initiative brings together public and private educators at all levels, working in collaboration with representatives of state government, the business community, labor, and educational support agencies to focus on improving learner achievement. Its vision statement says, all Hawaii residents will be educated, caring, self-sufficient, and able to contribute to their families, to the economy, and to the common good, and will be encouraged to continue learning throughout their lives. The initiative, which recently unveiled its strategic plan, is a joint commitment of the Hawaii Department of Education, the Good Beginnings Alliance, and the University of Hawaii, working with a statewide P-20 Council to develop a seamless system of educational delivery. I encourage anyone with interest in this effort to view the details of the plan at www.p20hawaii.org. A main goal of the initiative is to prepare my State's learners to succeed in a society fast becoming more global, technological and complex. Ultimately, it seeks to improve the quality of life for all of Hawaii. I am pleased to support this effort and work toward providing this and similar programs in other states with the resources to achieve their aims. The Lieberman-Snowe bill does this, and I look forward to working with my colleagues toward its enactment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act that will require people applying or reapplying for Medicaid to verify their citizenship with a U.S. passport or birth certificate. I thank my cosponsors of this legislation, Senators Obama, Bingaman, Inouye, Lautenberg, Jeffords, Kerry, and Lieberman for their support. This provision must be repealed before it goes into effect July 1, 2006. We have arrived at this conclusion because it will create barriers to health care, and from information we have gathered from agencies, it is unnecessary and will be an administrative burden to implement. These are reasons for this legislation. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that more than 51 million individuals in this country would be burdened by having to produce additional documentation. In 16 States--Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington--more than a million Medicaid beneficiaries will be required to submit the additional documents to receive or stay on Medicaid. In Hawaii, an estimated 392,000 people who are enrolled in Medicaid will be required to produce the additional documentation. The requirements will disproportionately impact low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, indigenous people, and individuals born in rural areas without access to hospitals. Due to discriminatory hospital admission policies, a significant number of African-Americans were prevented from being born in hospitals. One in five African Americans born during 1939-1940 do not have birth certificates. We need to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries are not discriminated against and do not lose access to care, simply because they do not have a passport or birth certificate. Data from a survey commissioned by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is helpful in trying to determine the impact of the legislation. One in 12 U.S.-born adults, who earn incomes 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, who have 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. Some groups are at a greater risk for losing their Medicaid coverage. Nine percent of African-American adults reported they did not have the needed documents. Seven percent of people over age 65 also report that they do not have birth certificates. Many others will also have difficulty in securing these documents, such as Native Americans born in home settings, Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless individuals. It is difficult enough to get access to health care, let alone acquire a birth certificate or a passport before seeking treatment. Some beneficiaries may not be able to afford the financial cost or time investment associated with obtaining a birth certificate or passport. The Hawaii Department of Health charges $10 for duplicate birth certificates. The costs vary by State and can be as much as $23 to get a birth certificate or $87 to $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. Failure to produce the documents quickly may result in a loss of Medicaid eligibility. Further compounding the hardship is the failure to provide an exemption for individuals suffering from mental or physical disabilities from the new requirements. I am really afraid that 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 healthcare providers, and the delay of treatment for needed health care. The hardships that will be imposed are unnecessary due to existing requirements that check immigration status. A 2005 study by the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General concluded there is no substantial evidence indicating that illegal immigrants claiming to be U.S. citizens are successfully enrolling in Medicaid. Twenty-eight of 47 Medicaid directors, surveyed by the Health and Human Services Inspector General, indicated that requiring documentary evidence of citizenship would delay eligibility determination. Twenty- five believe that providing additional evidence would result in increased eligibility personnel costs. State Medicaid Agencies would likely have to hire additional personnel to handle the increased workload with significant, additional administrative and financial costs. Twenty-one believe that it would be burdensome or expensive for applicants to obtain a birth certificate or other documentation. In my home State, the Hawaii Primary Care Association estimates the administrative costs for our Department of Human Services will result in an increased cost of $640,000. Mr. John McComas, the Chief Executive Officer, of AlohaCare, stated, ``We anticipate that there will be significant administrative costs added to our already overburdened Medicaid programs. These provisions are absolutely unnecessary and place an undue burden on the Medicaid beneficiary, to our entire Medicaid program, and ultimately to our entire state.'' I am frequently frustrated by the inability of the Congress to enact measures to improve health care for Americans. A misconceived provision to mandate these additional documentation requirements will cause real people real pain, and create public health and administrative difficulties. The provision in the Deficit Reduction Act will force every current and future Medicaid beneficiary to produce a passport or birth certificate. I look forward to my colleagues working with me to repeal this provision. I am hopeful that as my friends in the Senate go home during recess, they talk with their constituents at health centers, State Medicaid offices, and social service organizations, and hear how important it is to them for this legislation to be enacted to protect access to Medicaid. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record, as well as letters of support and concern from AlohaCare, the Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations, Maternal and Child Health Access, the Hawaii Primary Care Association, and Siren.