Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of resolutions congratulating the Ewa Beach little league team, the Oahu all-star team, and the Hawaii Warriors on their world championships. All three teams recently persevered through difficult competition to become world champions. The Ewa Beach little leaguers competed in the Little League World Series held in Williamsport, PA. The team posted an impressive 7-6 win in the championship game, in which they came from three runs down to defeat the defending championship team from Curacao in extra innings. The Oahu all-stars participated in the Cal Ripken World Series tournament held in Aberdeen, MD. In the championship game, the team used three pitchers to combine for a one hit shut-out as they prevailed by a score of 1-0 over the reigning champs, a very talented team from Mexico. A special congratulations to Kewby Meyer for being named Most Outstanding Player of the series. The Hawaii Warriors won the 2005 Continental Amateur Baseball Association World Series, ages 9 and under. The team battled from behind in the final innings to win the championship game and complete the series with a perfect 9-0 record. I am proud not only of the impressive wins but also of the humility and sportsmanship that the teams displayed as they won with aloha. All the teams represented the State of Hawaii, and the United States, very well. I recognize the sacrifices many family members and friends made to support the teams. These young men were able to enjoy the athletic competitions because of their loving and caring families. I applaud these families' efforts and wish all the players and their families the best in future endeavors. I look forward to hearing more about the success of our little leaguers as they continue to pursue their education and baseball ambitions. I also want to recognize all of the contributions from a Brookings Institution fellow in my office, Bill Ferraro. I ask unanimous consent the Teams' rosters be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I will speak on this amendment. I tell our colleagues Senator Craig and I work very well together, and we will still work well together with the Veterans' Administration. My amendment is to meet the needs that are there now. This amendment takes $10 million from VA information technology--specifically from a troubled Health-E-Vet Migration Program. So this is an offset to the $10 million. IT is critically important. We know that. As ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am quite familiar with VA's electronic medical record. VA is making use of the best technology out there. We saw how good the electronic medical record was following Hurricane Katrina when VA providers were able to access medical records of evacuees. This amendment would not impinge upon that critical program. I am also quite familiar with a failed computer program called CORE-F.L.S., which was abandoned after its failure at Big Pines VA Medical Center in Florida. To be sure, this $300 million contract failed because of lax project management. I want to make perfectly sure that the Health-E-Vet is on the right track. As recently as February of this year, VA hired Carnegie Mellon to assess this Health-E-Vet Program. Carnegie Mellon found that VA did not ``have the needed staff or procedures for a large-scale system integration project.'' In the meantime, PTSD and mental health needs of returning soldiers are absolutely critical. Vet centers are most likely the VA entity which will be first accessed by a returning soldier. History tells us that returning soldiers are more likely to seek treatment at a storefront vet center rather than a VA hospital or clinic. I also remind my colleagues that if we reach returning soldiers with less serious readjustment issues, we might be able to stave off the more debilitating PTSD. This is a simple choice that we make at this time. I thank my chairman for his comments. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Jeffords and Senator Kerry as cosponsors of my amendment.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this amendment would plus-up the Readjustment Counseling Service's funding by $10 million. RCS is the arm of VA that operates the Vet Centers that many of us know so well. Vet Centers have traditionally provided needed counseling services to veterans of the Vietnam War in community-based settings for over two decades. Now, in the midst of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, the mission of the Vet Centers has been expanded to include outreach and counseling for service members, including members of the Guard and Reserve, who are returning from these conflicts. By providing the Vet Centers with an additional $10 million in funding, VA would be able to hire additional professional family therapists at Vet Centers nationwide to provide services to family members of veterans deeply affected by their service in combat. The readjustment period can be difficult for the entire family. We have all heard the statistics emerging from the groups that have already come back from OIF and OEF. Families and marriages have suffered due to rough transitions, and many have resulted in divorce. These additional funds would also augment Vet Centers in underserved rural communities and would expand the capacity for these centers to provide readjustment services to those veterans who may struggle with obtaining access because they live in a remote area. Surviving family members of those servicemen who paid the ultimate price, will be able to find solace through the Vet Center's bereavement counseling program. Vet Centers would be able to hire more bereavement counselors to provide counseling for those who must endure the pain of losing a family member in combat. Finally, I point out that in his testimony to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs this past June, VA Secretary Nicholson stated that only $8 million would be required for additional services that were already being implemented by the Vet Center program, such as providing additional outreach workers. We need to make sure that these services are secure by providing the funds necessary to implement them. The requested amount would do that and go even a bit further to support this invaluable program. Mr. President, I ask for support of this amendment, knowing how important it is today for our veterans, and look forward to its adoption. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah and the ranking member, Senator Kohl, for accepting these amendments.

Mr. AKAKA. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to offer two amendments to H.R. 2744, the Agriculture appropriations bill for FY 2006, that will help protect the health of the American public. Amendment 1730, the downed animal amendment, would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, from utilizing funds under this act to approve downed animals for human consumption. Downed animals are livestock such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines that are too sick to stand or walk unassisted. Many of these animals are dying from infectious diseases and present a significant pathway for the spread of disease. While I commend USDA and livestock organizations for their efforts to address the issue of downed animals, I am still very concerned about diseases such as BSE, more commonly known as mad cow disease, that pose a serious risk to the United States cattle industry and human health. A food inspection study conducted in Germany in 2001 found that BSE is present in a higher percentage of downed livestock than in the general cattle population. USDA stated that downed animals are one of the most significant potential pathways that have not been addressed in previous efforts to reduce risks from BSE. Stronger legislation is needed to ensure that these animals do not enter our food chain. My amendment is very simple. It would prevent downed animals from being approved for consumption at our dinner tables. This will allow USDA and other stakeholders to continue working on reducing and potentially eliminating the risk of BSE or any other prions from entering our food chain. Currently, before slaughter, USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, diverts downer livestock that exhibit clinical signs associated with BSE or other types of diseases until further tests may be taken. However, this does not mean that downed livestock cannot be processed for human consumption. If downer cattle presented for slaughter pass both the pre- and post-inspection process, meat and meat by-products from such cattle can be used for human consumption. Routinely, BSE is not correctly distinguished from many other diseases and conditions that show similar symptoms. This was demonstrated by the surveillance of a similar inspection process in Europe, showing that the process is inadequate for detecting BSE. Consequently, BSE-infected cattle can be approved for human and animal consumption. Today, USDA has increased its efforts to test approximately 10 percent of downed cattle per year for BSE. However, it is my understanding that USDA is looking to revisit this issue. I do not believe that now is the time to lower our defenses. While I am not asking the industry and Federal Government to test every slaughtered cow, I am asking the Federal Government to address and reduce the real risks associated with BSE and similar diseases in the U.S. Some individuals fear that my amendment would place an excessive financial burden on the livestock industry. I want to remind my colleagues that one single downed cow in Canada diagnosed with BSE this year shut down the world's third largest beef exporter. It is estimated that the Canadian beef industry lost more than $1 billion as a result of the discovery of BSE and more than 30 countries banned Canadian cattle and beef. As the Canadian cattle industry continues to recover from its economic loss, it is prudent for the United States to be proactive in preventing BSE and other animal diseases from entering our food chain. We must protect our livestock industry and human health from diseases such as BSE. My amendment reduces the threat of passing diseases from downed livestock to our food supply. It also requires higher standards for food safety and protects human health from diseases and the livestock industry from economic distress. amendment no. 1729 Amendment No. 1729 is based on my bill, the Pet Safety and Protection Act, S. 451. It will protect family pets while allowing research on dogs and cats to continue in an environment free from scientific fraud and animal abuse. This amendment prohibits Federal funds from being provided to a research facility that purchases animals from Class B dealers. Class B animal dealers collect dogs and cats from ``random sources'' and routinely violate the Animal Welfare Act. The Animal Welfare Act sets the minimum standards of care for animals and requires accurate record keeping on their acquisition and disposition. Dogs and cats are subjected to abusive handling and exposure to the elements while kept on the premises of Class B dealers. They are routinely denied sufficient food, water, and veterinary care before they are sold off to laboratories. Less than a month ago, one of the more notorious Class B dealers, C.C. Baird, pleaded guilty in a case before a U.S. District Judge. He had violated the Animal Welfare Act because he transferred the dogs and cats to research facilities with false acquisition records. During the search, approximately 125 dogs were seized by Federal agents as evidence of various violations of the Animal Welfare Act. I recently sent a letter to all my colleagues in the Senate requesting support in passing the Pet Safety and Protection Act. On the front were pictures of a hound dog, Buck, who was in terrible shape-- skinny, his ribs sticking out, pieces of his ear torn off--after being held by a Class B dealer. There are only 17 Class B dealers selling random source dogs and cats for research. However, there are hundreds of suppliers to these dealers. Random source animals are dogs and cats that may be obtained by fraudulent means, through ``free to good homes'' ads, false animal origin records, and stealing of pet dogs and cats from their owners. The Department of Agriculture lacks the necessary resources to track the interstate activities of Class B dealers to ensure that they comply with Federal law. USDA cannot provide an assurance that illegal acquired pets are not being sold by Class B dealers. This is a problem that is certain to grow in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina with the thousands of animals placed in shelters. From a scientific research point of view, Class B-acquired animals have not had standardized care nor is there any certainty of the history of the animals. These circumstances make them unsuitable as research subjects in any case, since they cannot be used as control cases or experimental animals. Valid scientific research relies on controlled experimental design and replicable results--two things highly questionable when using animals with unknown history and background. This simple amendment prohibits funding in this FY 2006 appropriations bill from going to research facilities that purchase animals from a dealer that holds a Class B license under the Animal Welfare Act. I urge my colleagues to support these two amendments.

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1730 to H.R. 2744.

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I have two amendments to offer. I call up amendment No. 1729 to H.R. 2744, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, what is the pending order of business?

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I want to discuss one of the many potential problems that will face this Nation in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We have all heard the stories of the displacement of thousands of citizens from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Many of these people have lost everything--their homes and belongings destroyed. Undoubtedly, some of these people are veterans with claims they wish to appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Under current law, a veteran has 120-days to file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. If a notice of appeal is not filed within the 120-day window, the veteran essentially loses the right to appeal and might not receive benefits to which the veteran is entitled. Given the current conditions in the gulf coast region, Congress must conclude that 120 days is not enough time for a veteran to file a notice of appeal. The sheer stress of the situation and the possibility that veterans and their advocates may not have access to the appropriate files makes 120 days for appeals unreasonable. I have submitted legislation that extends the window for a notice of appeal from 120 days to 240 days for a veteran affected by Hurricane Katrina. This extension will provide appropriate relief to those attempting to rebuild their lives. Veterans should not be additionally burdened during these turbulent times. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and it is my hope that this legislation will pass the Senate in the near future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I want to discuss one of the many potential problems that will face this Nation in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We have all heard the stories of the displacement of thousands of citizens from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Many of these people have lost everything--their homes and belongings destroyed. Undoubtedly, some of these people are veterans with claims they wish to appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Under current law, a veteran has 120-days to file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. If a notice of appeal is not filed within the 120-day window, the veteran essentially loses the right to appeal and might not receive benefits to which the veteran is entitled. Given the current conditions in the gulf coast region, Congress must conclude that 120 days is not enough time for a veteran to file a notice of appeal. The sheer stress of the situation and the possibility that veterans and their advocates may not have access to the appropriate files makes 120 days for appeals unreasonable. I have submitted legislation that extends the window for a notice of appeal from 120 days to 240 days for a veteran affected by Hurricane Katrina. This extension will provide appropriate relief to those attempting to rebuild their lives. Veterans should not be additionally burdened during these turbulent times. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and it is my hope that this legislation will pass the Senate in the near future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, regrettably, I was detained at a Veterans' Affairs Committee business meeting which precluded my presence at an important nomination hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on two critical nominations for key positions within the Department of Homeland Security. The Senate has the responsibility to ensure that the best qualified and most able people serve our country. I ask unanimous consent that my statement for that hearing be included in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would provide continuous care to those veterans that have been affected by Hurricane Katrina, one of the worst natural disasters that our country has ever experienced. The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA has played an integral role in the disaster relief efforts of Hurricane Katrina, beginning with the successful evacuation of patients, staff and family members, and now in the recovery stage of the aftermath. Earlier today, I attended a briefing given by VA Secretary Nicholson and other VA officials on VA's response to the hurricane. VA truly stepped up in the midst of this crisis, and successfully evacuated all of their patients and staff without any loss of life. I commend VA for their coordination and execution of their relief effort. The Department should serve as a model for other government agencies in dealing with disasters. There is one area, however, where I believe even more can be done to help veterans in Louisiana and Mississippi who have been affected by this tragedy. The legislation I'm introducing will extend a humanitarian hand to those middle-income veterans in the region who do not have access to VA health care because of a decision made by this administration in 2003. The bill extends hospital care and medical services to the Priority 8 veterans affected by Hurricane Katrina, who have previously been denied access to the system. Veterans residing in areas of New Orleans, LA; Biloxi, MS, or Gulfport, MS, during the hurricane--who have most likely lost everything in this disaster--will be able to find solace in knowing that VA will continue to be there for them even after the media attention fades. It would simply be wrong to exclude these men and women who have served our country from VA services, especially now in their time of need. This bill also serves to relieve some of the financial burden placed on the veterans by waiving copayments for care and medications. VA's mission is to take care of veterans and also to provide support to other Federal agencies during times of disaster. VA has upheld that mission by establishing a legacy of first rate health care for veterans and now through the response efforts to Hurricane Katrina. We can do more for these veterans by allowing VA to serve as a beacon of hope in their time of recovery. I would like to thank the countless VA volunteers that have answered the call of duty to our Nation, just as our veterans once did. These volunteers have left their duty stations to support efforts at the surrounding VA hospitals that have taken on the evacuated patients, as well as manning the mobile clinics currently touring the affected areas to provide care. These men and women are true heroes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Yes.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, my thoughts are with all of those from the Gulf Coast States affected by Hurricane Katrina as they mourn the loss of family and friends and neighbors. We wish them well. I know there are no words that can provide the needed comfort. I believe there must be an extensive examination of what went wrong with the Government's response to this natural disaster. As hundreds of thousands of Americans look toward rebuilding their lives, our first priority must be to ensure that all possible Federal resources are at their disposal. However, it is Congress's job to get to the bottom of what went wrong and to do whatever is necessary to ensure that it never happens again. I join those who say we must not engage in a blame game but, rather, we must come together to undertake responsible oversight. I say this from an interesting vantage point because throughout the debate over the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, I repeatedly expressed my strong concern that nonhomeland security functions of the Federal Government would be diminished if included in the new Department. I said that eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency's status as an independent agency to join this proposed Department could seriously affect FEMA's traditional role of responding to natural disasters. At Under Secretary Michael Brown's confirmation hearing to be Deputy Director of FEMA in June 2002, 5 months before the Homeland Security Act passed, I spoke about the perils of converting FEMA into a homeland security centric agency. At the time, I said: The President's proposal for a new Department of Homeland Security will include the Federal Emergency Management Agency. A key question is how will this new role for FEMA in homeland security affect its traditional mission? . . . Many of the agencies impacted by this proposal, including FEMA, have a number of core responsibilities unrelated to their homeland security missions. Most of what FEMA does every day, and what Americans expect from FEMA, does not fall under the category of homeland security. Because of my strong belief that the nonhomeland security functions of FEMA, the Coast Guard, and other agencies that are now part of DHS would be diminished when merged into this massive agency, I successfully offered an amendment to the Governmental Affairs Committee's version of the Homeland Security Act, cosponsored by Senator Carper, that required all nonhomeland security functions of each of the 22 legacy agencies to be identified, along with the resources needed to preserve these functions. Unfortunately, the version of the bill passed by Congress failed to include my amendment, which is one of the reasons that I was one of eight Senators who voted against the creation of DHS. In a further effort to ensure constancy of the nonhomeland security functions of DHS, I introduced in April 2003 legislation that would have required the Department to identify annually the resources, personnel, and capabilities devoted to nonhomeland security functions. My measure would have required DHS to include this information in its annual performance report, as well as required the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the Department's performance of essential nonhomeland security missions. When introducing my bill, S. 910, the Nonhomeland Security Mission Performance Act of 2003, I said: The cost of creating a Department of Homeland Security should not come at the expense of these essential missions. Agencies should strike the proper balance between new homeland security responsibilities and their critical nonhomeland security missions. Enhancing traditional missions also enhances domestic security which depends on sound management strategies that ensure adequate resources and personnel. S. 910 was reported favorably by the Governmental Affairs Committee but was, unfortunately, never considered by the full Senate. I stand before my colleagues today to ask that we look at the disaster that has befallen the people of the gulf coast as a reminder that preventing terrorism is not the only business of the Department of Homeland Security. My colleagues and I must carefully reexamine whether critical nonhomeland security missions have been compromised by their decisions in DHS. I ask unanimous consent that my statement from the Governmental Affairs Committee hearing for Michael Brown's confirmation to be Deputy Director of FEMA on June 19, 2002, and my statement on the introduction of S. 910, the Nonhomeland Security Mission Performance Act, on April 11, 2003, be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to today in support of the Energy bill and to provide some perspective on the conference report for H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I have been in Congress since 1976, serving first in the House of Representatives, and since 1990 in the Senate. I have served with many outstanding Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Senators who have advanced my knowledge and appreciation for comprehensive energy policy in the long-term. I served with Representative Jim Lord, who was my mentor in the House when I first arrived. I saw him again just before I stepped into last Sunday's conference committee meeting in Rayburn. I served with my good friend and colleague, John Dingell, from Michigan, and I served with the dedicated and ever-insightful Congressman from Massachusetts, Ed Markey. Both of them have made enormous contributions to this year's energy bill, as have all the House Members. I have served on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for more than 10 years. I was here when the Senate passed the last energy bill, the Energy Policy Act of 1992. That bill was a benchmark that established a range of energy efficiency, conservation, renewable energy, research and development, and regulatory frameworks for energy that are still in place today. My observation is that the compromise that we have now may be the best we can get in the next 5 to 10 years, given the regional nature of energy and the partisan nature of politics. Energy is an issue with regional, special interest, and State and local ``tugs'' and ``pulls'' unlike other national issues. The breadth of this energy bill is almost incomprehensible. An energy policy sounds simple, but it is a complex, interlocked patchwork of agreements, prohibitions and incentives. If we do nothing, we will be worse off than when we started. We will not advance energy conservation, efficiency, or production of alternative fuels if we do not pass the bill. I urge members to remember that we have spent over 5 years debating an energy bill and we have seen bills that are much, much worse. This bill represents a victory in many ways. It is victory of democratic process over regional politics. This bill was fully heard by the committee and fully debated and amended in the Senate. It was a bipartisan effort on which we spent 3 months exploring the topics making a comprehensive bill. We spent another 2 weeks debating and changing this bill in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. We accepted many amendments on the Democratic side. The Senate debated the bill for another 2 weeks, changing it and improving it again. I applaud the efforts of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, the chair and ranking member of the Energy Committee, for upholding the promise of the Senate energy bill in the conference discussions. They showed great leadership in holding firm to the Senate bill, rejecting House provisions that were unacceptable. Their staffs were determined to provide us an energy bill that did not include excessive spending or destructive environmental compromises. The energy conference report is not perfect, but its a good bill. I know the bill does not have provisions for fuel efficiency standards for cars, SUVs, and trucks, provisions which I supported in the Committee and on the floor. It does not have controls on carbon dioxide or standards for renewable electricity, although the latter was approved in the Senate. In many respects, these are small steps, but important ones, in the right direction to meet our energy challenges. It encourages cleaner alternative energy initiatives such as hydrogen, solar, wind, geothermal, and natural gas resources. It emphasizes greater use of renewables. It promotes greater efficiency in the way we currently use appliances, home heating and cooling, with more stringent standards. It encourages more efficient cars, homes, and commercial appliances such as dishwashers. It strengthens the reliability of our electricity grid, encourages more transmission lines, and protects ratepayers from market abuses. These are things that are needed now, not in another 5 years when the composition of Congress or the White House might change. The bill does not go as far as I would have liked to address some of the biggest energy problems our Nation faces. It seems Congress cannot mobilize the political will to take the difficult steps needed to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, improve vehicle fuel efficiency or deal with global warming. I supported those amendments, both on the Senate floor and in conference committee deliberations, but we lost in fair votes in an open process. What we have before us, in the long run, is a bill that is balanced in terms of production of energy from a variety of sources and it uses appropriated funds and tax expenditures to encourage research, development, and production. There will always be detractors who can find problems with particular pieces of this far-reaching energy bill. The comprehensive bill is so broad that I do not believe it will ever satisfy the positions of every interest group. The bottom line is that this bill does not include the onerous provisions of an MTBE liability waiver, an ozone bump-up, and it does not include categorical waivers for NEPA for oil and gas developments. It does include many tax provisions to encourage alternative and renewable fuels, nuclear energy, and oil and gas industries. But the proportions allocated to the renewable sector, clean coal, and energy efficiency are greater than the tax credits and royalty relief for oil and gas, particularly when you consider that a large portion is for a refining capacity incentive, badly needed to increase the efficiency of oil and gas refineries. I greatly appreciate the efforts of Senators Grassley and Baucus, and their staffs, who bore the responsibility of crafting the finance portion of the bill under great pressure with grace and generosity. In this era of alarming Federal budget deficits and declining domestic discretionary spending, we have to look to tax incentives and loan guarantees to mobilize capital investment in new and cleaner energy. For the Nation to maintain our leadership in technology and engineering, we must spend money. Because of many circumstances, namely the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and future extensions of tax cuts, we do not have adequate funds to spend on this effort. The only place we can find revenue to encourage the adoption of new technologies is through tax incentives. To me, this is an innovative way to create opportunity out of hardship. The bill the Senate will consider today, on balance, improves our energy policy and deserves to be enacted. Enormous credit for the success of the conference and the development of the bill goes to my colleagues from New Mexico, Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman, and their staff, who worked long and hard around the clock to bring this bill to fruition. Senator Domenici has taken a fresh look, from the beginning of the 109th Congress, and changed his entire approach to the energy bill. I greatly appreciate his orientation and his strategy working with his colleagues on this energy bill. I also extend my great appreciation to Chairman Joe Barton and Ranking Member John Dingell for their openness and willingness to work with members on the special needs of their States. Their leadership ensured that the conference was fair, open, and bipartisan from start to finish. I look forward to voting for this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. Clarification Of Section 1287 Of The Energy Policy Act Of 2005

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Majority Leader. I rise today to express my thanks to the Majority Leader for laying down the cloture petition on the motion to proceed to S. 147. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have worked closely with Hawaii's senior senator to bring the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act to the Senate floor for debate and vote. We have struggled for five years to bring this bill to the floor. I applaud the Majority Leader and the Democratic Leader for their efforts to uphold a commitment that was made last year for a debate and vote on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act prior to the August recess. While I am very disappointed that we were not able to consider the bill, I look forward to action on S. 147 when we return in September. This is a bipartisan bill which is widely supported in Hawaii. The bill is supported by Hawaii's Governor, Linda Lingle, the first Republican governor in Hawaii in 40 years, who testified in strong support of the bill before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. The bill is also supported by the Hawaii State Legislature which passed resolutions in support of the bill in 2000, 2001, and 2005. The bill is cosponsored by Senators Cantwell, Coleman, Dodd, Dorgan, Graham, Inouye, Murkowski, Smith, and Stevens. I want to especially thank the bill cosponsors who have actively worked with us to try to get this bill before the Senate. S. 147 sets up a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. Congress has always treated Native Hawaiians in a manner similar to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives because of its recognition of Native Hawaiians as indigenous peoples. Some have argued that Native Hawaiians are not native ``enough'' for a government-to-government relationship. There is no doubt that Native Hawaiians are indigenous to Hawaii. There is no doubt that Native Hawaiians exercised sovereignty over the Hawaiian archipelago. There is no doubt that Native Hawaiians had a governing structure and entered into treaties with the United States, similar to that of their American Indian and Alaska Native brethren. Where we differ is that whereas most tribes have been allowed to retain their governing structure, Native Hawaiians, following the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, were forbidden from maintaining their government. Native Hawaiians did, however, maintain distinct communities, and retained their language, customs, tradition, and culture despite efforts to extinguish these ``native'' practices. The bill does not create a new relationship--Congress has long recognized its legal and political relationship with Native Hawaiians as evidenced by the many statutes enacted to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians. This bill does not create a new group of natives--we have always been here, in fact we were here before the United States. Rather, this bill establishes parity in federal policies towards native peoples in the United States by formally extending the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians. I look forward to a full and thorough debate on this bill in September. I urge all of my colleagues to support the petition to invoke cloture--after five years, the people of Hawaii deserve to have this issue considered by the Senate. If you oppose the bill, then vote against it, but give us the opportunity to debate the merits of this bill. Unfortunately, there are some in this body who do not even want to allow us to debate this issue. I ask them to carefully consider their position over the August recess. While I respect their ability to use Senate procedure to prevent us from considering this measure, I do not agree with their tactics. I believe the people of Hawaii deserve more than that--we deserve a full debate and up or down vote on this bill. Once again, I thank the Majority and Democratic leaders for working with us to bring this issue before the Senate for its consideration.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act, along with my colleagues Senators Reid, Durbin, Bingaman, Corzine, Murray, Kennedy, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Inouye, Pryor, Mikulski, Obama, Dodd, Lieberman, and Clinton. I want to thank them, as well as my colleagues in the other body, for all of their contributions to this important legislation. This bill will improve access to and the quality of health care for indigenous people and racial and ethnic minorities who often lack access and suffer disproportionately from certain diseases. It is essential that we expand and improve the health care safety net so that everyone can access the health care services that they need. This legislation will expand health coverage and includes provisions that will increase access to culturally-appropriate and relevant services for our communities. In addition to improving treatments for the diseases that disproportionately effect indigenous people and racial and ethnic minorities, we need to also focus on preventing these diseases in the first place. This legislation will help combat heart disease, asthma, HIV/AIDS, and diabetes. Diabetes is a disease that disproportionately affects Pacific Islanders, including Native Hawaiians. Among populations in Hawaii, Native Hawaiians had the highest age-adjusted mortality rates due to diabetes for the years 2000 to 2002. Statistics for U.S.-related Pacific Jurisdictions are difficult to obtain due to underdeveloped reporting and data collection systems. However, available data suggests that diabetes and its complications are growing problems that are creating a greater burden on the health care delivery systems of the Pacific Jurisdictions. For example, in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, mortality data for 1996-2000 reflects that complications from diabetes are the leading cause of death and accounted for 30 percent of all deaths during that period. In American Samoa, mortality data for 1998-2001 shows that diabetes is the third leading cause of death accounting for nine percent of all deaths for that period. In Guam, diabetes has been identified as the fifth leading cause of death and the prevalence rate has been estimated to be seven times that of the United States. Local governments have had to focus on expensive off-island tertiary hospital care and curative services, resulting in the reduction of funds available for community-based primary preventive care and pnblic health services throughout the Pacific Jurisdictions. There is a need for more comprehensive diabetes awareness education efforts targeted at communities with Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander populations. Papa Ola Lokahi, a non-profit agency created in 1988 that functions as a consortium with private and state agencies in Hawaii to improve the health status of Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders, has established the Pacific Diabetes Today Resource Center. Pacific Diabetes Today is designed to provide community members with basic knowledge and skills to plan and implement community-based diabetes prevention and control activities. Since 1998, the Pacific Diabetes Today program has provided training and technical assistance to 11 communities in Hawaii and the Pacific Jurisdictions. However, more can be done to ensure that the diabetic health needs of Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders are being met. Community-based diabetes programs need to be better integrated into the larger infrastructure of diabetes prevention and control. Comprehensive, specific programs are needed to mobilize Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander communities and develop appropriate interventions for diabetes complications prevention and improve diabetes care. My bill, therefore, includes a provision that would authorize a comprehensive program to prevent and better manage the overlapping health problems that are often related to diabetes such as obesity, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. I am also pleased that a provision has been included in this bill that would restore Medicaid eligibility for Freely Associated States, FAS, citizens in the United States. The political relationship between the United States and the FAS is based on mutual support. In exchange for the United States having strategic denial and a defense veto over the FAS, the United States provides military and economic assistance to the Republic of Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau with the goal of assisting these countries in achieving economic self-sufficiency following the termination of their status as U.N. Trust territories. Pursuant to the Compact, FAS citizens are allowed to freely enter the United States. They come to seek economic opportunity, education, and health care. Unfortunately, FAS citizens lost many of their public benefits as a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, PRWORA, of 1996, including Medicaid coverage. FAS citizens were previously eligible for Medicaid as aliens permanently residing under color of law in the United States. After the enactment of PRWORA, the State of Hawaii was informed that it could not claim Federal matching funds for services rendered to FAS citizens. Since then, the State of Hawaii, and the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI, have continued to incur substantial costs to meet the health care needs of FAS citizens that have immigrated to these areas. The Federal Government must provide Federal resources to help States meet the healthcare needs of the FAS citizens that have been brought about by a Federal commitment. It is inequitable for a state or territory to be responsible for all of the financial burden of providing necessary social services to individuals that are residing there due to a Federal commitment. Mr. President, FAS citizen eligibility must be restored. Furthermore, the State of Hawaii, and the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the CNMI, should be reimbursed for all of the Medicaid expenses of FAS citizens, and must not be responsible for the costs of providing essential health care services for FAS citizens. Finally, there is another provision in this bill is of extreme importance to the State of Hawaii, taken from legislation that my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, has introduced. The provision would provide a 100 percent Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage, FMAP, of health care costs of Native Hawaiians who receive health care from Federally Qualified Health Centers or the Native Hawaiian Health Care System. This would provide similar treatment for Native Hawaiians as already granted to Native Alaskans by the Indian Health Service or tribal organizations. The increased FMAP will ensure that Native Hawaiians have access to the essential health services provided by community health centers and the Native Hawaiian Health Care System. This bill would significantly improve the quality of life for indigenous people and ethnic and racial minorities, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr President, I have come to the floor again to speak about the ability of the United States to prevent and respond to a terrorist attack on American agriculture, a topic that I believe deserves more attention from the Congress and the administration. That is why I commend the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry for holding a hearing on agroterrorism last week. This was their first hearing on the subject, and I welcome their interest because I have been pursuing the passage of legislation on agriculture security for the past 3 years. I first introduced agriculture security legislation, S. 2767, the Agriculture Security Preparedness Act, which was referred to the Agriculture Committee, in the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, it was not acted upon in that Congress. I reintroduced my legislation in the 108th Congress and again in the 109th. I am pleased that S. 573, the Agriculture Security Assistance Act, was included in S. 975, the Project Bioshield Act of 2005, and I thank the bill's chief sponsor, Senator Lieberman, for that inclusion. The strong potential for the American food supply system to be a target of terrorist attack and the severe repercussions such an attack would cause are widely accepted among experts. At the July 20 Agriculture Committee hearing, Mr. John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, testified: Most people do not equate terrorist attacks with agroterrorism. But the threat is real, and the impact could be devastating. Another witness, Dr. Robert Brackett, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, FDA, added: A terrorist attack on the food supply could have both severe public health and economic consequences, while damaging the public's confidence in the food we eat. According to the Department of Agriculture, USDA, the United States food and fiber system accounts for approximately 12 percent of our gross domestic product and employs 17 percent of the U.S. workforce. Yet the infrastructure that composes this sector of the economy, which is central to American prosperity, is often not viewed as critical as power lines, bridges, or ports. We cannot underestimate our dependence on America's breadbasket. On March 9, 2005, the same day I introduced my two agriculture security bills, S. 572, the Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act, and S. 573, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report I requested entitled, ``Much is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges Remain'' (GAO-05-214). The GAO report reviews the current state of agriculture security in the United States and points to a number of key areas where improvement is necessary, such as the inability of USDA to deploy animal disease vaccines in 24 hours and the lack of foreign animal disease knowledge among USDA-certified veterinarians. GAO also confirmed information I had received from the National Association of Agriculture Employees that the agricultural mission of Customs and Border Protection, CBP, was insufficiently prioritized. GAO found that the number of agricultural inspections at U.S. borders had declined by 3.4 million since the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, took over the border inspection responsibility from USDA. In February 2005, I wrote to then-DHS Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security Asa Hutchinson expressing my concern over the decline in border inspections because I know how important they are to the economy of Hawaii--home to more endangered species than any other State. In response, I received a commitment from DHS to hire additional agriculture specialists at CBP to ensure the agricultural mission does not go unmet. Also noted in the GAO report were shortcomings in DHS's Federal coordination of national efforts to protect against agroterrorism. The Federal agencies involved in agriculture security--DHS, USDA, FBI, and FDA, to name a few--claim they are working closely with each other. However, one only need look at the June 2004 incident in Washington State, where 18 cattle developed chromium contamination, to see that there are communication gaps at the Federal level. Agroterrorism was suspected, yet neither USDA nor DHS were notified. In May 2004, representatives from the FBI, FDA, and USDA gave a presentation at an agroterrorism conference in Kansas City, MO, on lessons learned from the Washington outbreak which included a slide stating that the following agencies should be contacted if agroterrorism is suspected: a State's Department of Agriculture, FDA, USDA, FBI, local law enforcement, and State and county public health officials. Why was the Department of Homeland Security not on the list? It is apparent that Federal coordination remains inadequate if notification of DHS is considered unnecessary by other responding agencies. To ensure a comprehensive and coordinated approach to agroterrorism, my bills address many of the concerns raised by GAO and others. The Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act will: increase communication and coordination between DHS and State, local, and tribal homeland security officials regarding agroterrorism; ensure agriculture security is included in State, local, and regional emergency response plans; and establish a task force of State and local first responders that will work with DHS to identify best practices in the area of agriculture security. The Agriculture Security Assistance Act will: provide financial and technical assistance to States and localities for agroterrorism preparedness and response; increase international agricultural disease surveillance and inspections of imported agricultural products; require that certified veterinarians be knowledgeable in foreign animal diseases; and require that USDA study the costs and benefits of developing a more robust animal disease vaccine stockpile. I look forward to working with the Agriculture Committee as agriculture security legislation moves forward. As ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, I will continue to make agroterrorism a priority for the Federal Government, and I ask my colleagues to join me in this quest.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to address the conference report on the Interior appropriations bill. Indeed, our efforts in the Senate to add $1.5 billion in funding for VA this year have borne fruit. I again laud our bipartisan effort to address the funding crisis in VA health care. I also wish to thank my colleague, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, for his determination to ensure that $1.5 billion was the final amount of fuhding for this year. Though some were willing to accept less, he and I understand that every last dollar of this amount is needed to provide the highest quality of care to all veterans--be they older veterans in VA nursing homes or younger service members just returning from Iraq and seeking VA care for the first time. We all know that while many of us have been saying that VA needs more money since the early part of the year, the administration needed to be pressed to own up to the shortfall. As I have said before, I hope in the future all Members reach out to VA nurses and doctors and reach out to the veterans service organizations. We need not wait for the administration to make an official pronouncement about something that is so obvious. I do believe that the administration has lost its credibility in forecasting demand and expected costs. I believe this is true for its estimates of this year's funding, as well as next year. The battle for next year's funding will be upon on us shortly. During the budget resolution I debate in March, I offered an amendment to increase VA's funding by $2.8 billion for next year. I stood before this body and outlined the case for a significant increase for VA. But we were I rejected because the administration claimed VA needed far less. The administration wants us to now believe that VA needs a certain amount for fiscal year 2005 and 2006. They now want to convince us that they have a handle on the numbers. I remain skeptical. VA rightly admits the fiscal year 2006 budget was off-the-mark in its estimate of the number of returning service members who will come for VA care. We know from experience how much it costs to treat a returning service member. Yet, the administration wants to now convince us that, in fact, the cost of treating a patient is less than half of this amount. My original estimate of a need for $3 billion in VA health care spending for next year remains correct. The VA appropriations bill must contain the full amount for VA health care next year. If not, our veterans will find this nightmare repeated once again. Along those lines, I appreciate the work that Senators Craig and Hutchison and our other colleagues are doing to tackle this problem. I believe we can find a solution, together.