Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After being rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002, and after being renominated and successfully filibustered by the full Senate in the 108th Congress, Justice Owen has been nominated yet again to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In my opinion, Justice Owen has not demonstrated an appropriate judicial temperament for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. More importantly, her own colleagues on the conservative Texas State Supreme Court have described her dissents as ``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.'' In another case, the majority stated that Justice Owen's dissenting opinion, ``. . . not only disregards the procedural limitations in the statute but takes a position even more extreme.'' However, I will not dwell too long on Justice Owen's record. It speaks for itself, and as I mentioned earlier, we have given much time and thought to this nomination. Much has already been said in opposition to her nomination. Instead, I will spend some time on the majority's plan in this Chamber to subvert the minority's right to extended debate. I have spent the past few weeks listening to the debate over seven nominees who were not confirmed in the 108th Congress and have been renominated to the Federal bench by President Bush. We are nearing the end of a debate that may forever change the very nature of how this great institution operates: by a delicate balance of the majority's ability to set the agenda and the protection of the minority's rights. One thing is clear to me, this discussion about the minority's right to extended debate is not getting us any closer to enacting much-needed legislation to assist our constituents. Outside of Washington, DC, on a day-to-day basis our constituents face many challenges: escalating health care costs, record high gas prices, and mounting debt that will be handed down to our children and grandchildren. Despite these day-to-day challenges, the majority party continues to put seven judicial nominations at the top of its agenda. Let it be clear to those following this debate. This discussion is over the fact that the Senate has passed only 95 percent of President Bush's nominees, not 100 percent. I take my responsibilities as a Senator very seriously. I am to provide the President with my advice and consent regarding the individuals he nominates for a lifetime position to the Federal judiciary. Let me say that again: a lifetime position on the Federal judiciary. Many have asked why the Democrats are so vigorously defending the rights of the minority in this case? Why do we need to preserve the tradition of extended debate with regard to judicial nominations? The reason why we are taking a stand against these nominees is because once they gain the Senate's advice and consent, nominees are free to decide thousands of key cases that affect millions of Americans on a day-to-day basis. If there are any objections we may have to a judicial nominee's lifetime appointment to the Federal judiciary, this is the time for each Senator to voice that opposition. Unlike legislation, which may be amended and refined over time, judges on the Federal bench sit for a lifetime appointment with little recourse for correction or change. The only chance we as Senators have to voice our positions on their appointments is now. From civil rights to personal privacy, from environmental protections to a corporation's financial matters; these nominees will affect public policy for decades to come. In fact, I dare say that we would be remiss in our Constitutional duties if we did not object to those nominees with whom we find unfit for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. It troubles me that the Senate has focused so much in the past few weeks discussing the fact that we have not acted on 7 of 218 of the President's nominees to the Federal judiciary. We are talking about seven individuals, seven individuals who have jobs, while 1.2 million people are without jobs since President Bush took office, seven individuals who most likely have health insurance, while 45 million Americans do not have health insurance. We should be talking about jobs and access to health care. We should be focusing on the need to increase funding to ensure that veterans, especially those returning from the global war on terror, have access to quality health care and benefits. We should be looking at energy legislation that will address the vital energy needs of our Nation. In short, we should be doing what the American people sent us to Washington to do; to govern, not engage in an effort to ensure that this President has a 100 percent success rate for his judicial nominations. If we want to start talking about legislation that is important to us as individual Senators, we could be talking about Federal recognition for Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians, an issue of extreme importance to my constituents in Hawaii. We could be talking about ending mutual fund abuses for investors or promoting financial and economic literacy for our youth and adults alike. We could be talking about how to fund the promises we extended when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act which has been severely underfunded since its enactment. Instead, over these past few weeks out of 218 judicial nominations approved we focus on the seven that Democrats have opposed. Despite confirming 208 nominations for a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench, there are those in this body who seek to subvert the rights of the minority for the sole purpose of ensuring that instead of a 95- percent success rate, the President has a 100-percent success rate with respect to his judicial nominations. This action will serve to deny me my ability to truly provide my advice and consent on individuals nominated to serve in the judiciary that our predecessors have preserved. It is sad that we have come to this point. During my tenure in the Senate, we have been able to work in a bipartisan manner to achieve our goals. Some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle argue that this is the first time a filibuster has been used for a judicial nominee. Republicans have openly filibustered a number of nominees on the floor of the Senate, five of whom were circuit court nominees. As we have heard multiple times during this debate, during President Clinton's two terms, close to 60 of his nominees were held in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and never brought to the Senate floor, never given the same up-or-down vote Republicans today say every Republican nominated judge deserves. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they have never engaged in efforts to block a judicial nomination. I want to share with my colleagues a situation I encountered during the 104th and 105th Congresses. An individual from Hawaii was nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii. This was a nominee strongly supported by both Senators from Hawaii. This nominee had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was reported favorably. However, this is where the process stopped for a period of 2\1/2\ years. A colleague from another State placed a hold on this nominee for over 30 months before allowing us to confirm this nomination. In effect, a Senator from a State thousands of miles from Hawaii blocked a district court nominee that the senior Senator from Hawaii and I supported. This colleague is a former Attorney General of the United States and happens to be a good friend of mine. I found this situation to be so unusual, that a colleague from another State would place a hold on a district court nominee from my State when both Hawaii Senators strongly supported the nomination. I raise this issue to dispute the notion that this is the first time a nomination has been blocked, after the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported the nomination to the Senate for consideration. I could also speak about the nomination of Justice James Duffy to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A fine nominee, described by his peers as the ``best of the best,'' he had strong support from Senator Inouye and me to fill Hawaii's slot on the Ninth Circuit. Yet, Justice Duffy never received a hearing in the Senate, which had a Republican majority at the time. He went 791 days without a hearing, Mr. President. I should mention that Hawaii now benefits from James Duffy's service on the Hawaii State Supreme Court, who was appointed with bipartisan support. Justice Duffy is one of the well-qualified and talented men and women nominated during the Clinton administration, individuals with bipartisan and home-State support, whose nominations were never acted on by the Senate. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle refused to hold hearings for nominees they did not agree with, effectively blocking the Senate's consideration of President Clinton's nominees. Let's look at the substance and not the rhetoric. The last person I will mention is Richard Clifton, who is now serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Clifton was nominated after President Bush withdrew Justice Duffy's nomination. Richard Clifton served as the Hawaii State Republican Party Counsel. While I do not necessarily agree with all of his views, I supported his nomination, because I have confidence in his ability to appropriately apply the law. He was confirmed within a year of his nomination. Since President Bush took office, we have been working in a bipartisan manner with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to fill the vacancies on the Federal judiciary, creating the lowest vacancy rate in 13 years. According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, there are 45 vacancies on the Federal bench. This is a decrease in total vacancies from 97 when this President first took office. Let's return to urgent legislation which will truly help our constituents-- jobs, access to health care, education, the minimum wage, and helping the poor. In a Senate where the divide between the majority and minority is held by a handful of votes, and that division reflects the viewpoint of the American body politic at-large, it is imperative that we work together to resolve the many issues that are important to our constituents. When it comes to judicial nominations, the confirmation of 208 judges clearly shows that we in the minority are doing what we can to work with the majority in upholding our constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations. I can only hope we achieve a success rate of 95 percent in enacting legislation addressing funding for education, access to health care, increases to the minimum wage, benefits and services for our veterans, business and economic development, and financial literacy to enable individuals and families to make sound decisions in their lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be provided to the Senator from New York.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the National Language Coordination Act of 2005 which provides a framework for leading and coordination the learning of foreign languages and cultures, with my good friends Senators Cochran and Dodd. The National Foreign Language Coordination Act would create the position of a National Language Director and a National Foreign Language Coordination Council to develop and oversee the implementation of a foreign language strategy. The proposed Council, chaired by the National Language Director, would identify crucial priorities, increase public awareness of the need for foreign language skills, advocate maximum use of resources, coordinate cross-sector efforts, and monitor the foreign language activities of the Federal Government. The genesis of this legislation is a report entitled, ``A Call to Action for National Foreign Language Capabilities,'' issued by the National Language Conference held in June 2004 under the auspices of the Department of Defense. This conference was an extraordinary gathering of government, industry, academia, and language association representatives. The mission of this meeting was twofold: to discuss and deliberate initial strategic approaches to meeting the nation's language needs in the 21st century, and to identify actions that could move the United States toward a ``language-competent nation.'' It was hosted by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and by the Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL) at the University of Maryland at College Park. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the report, ``A Call to Action for National Foreign Language Capabilities,'' be printed in the Record following my remarks. I believe the recommendations of this report speak eloquently to the need for this legislation. As Dr. David Chu, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, notes in his forward to the report, ``improving the nation's foreign language capability requires immediate and long-term engagement.'' The intent of this legislation is to ensure that immediate and long- term engagement. The establishment of a National Language Director and the creation of a National Foreign Language Coordination Council will ensure that the key recommendations of the Department of Defense sponsored conference will be implemented, which include: developing policies and programs that build the nation's language and cultural understanding capability; engaging federal, state, and local agencies and the private sector in solutions; developing language and cultural competency across public and private sectors; developing language skills in a wide range of critical languages; strengthening our education system, programs, and tools in foreign languages and cultures; and integrating language training into career fields and increase the number of language professionals. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, showed how much more was needed to improve education in these critical areas. The investigations surrounding the attacks have underscored how important foreign language proficiency is to our national security. The Joint Intelligence Committee inquiry into the terrorist attacks found that prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community was not prepared to handle the challenge of translating the volumes of foreign language counter- terrorism intelligence that had been collected. Agencies within the Intelligence Community experienced backlogs in material awaiting translation and a shortage of language specialists and language- qualified field officers in the most critical terrorism-related languages used by terrorists. America needs people who understand foreign cultures and who are fluent in locally-spoken languages. The stability and economic vitality of the United States and our national security depend on American citizens who are knowledgeable about the world. We need civil servants, including law enforcement officers, teachers, area experts, diplomats, and business people with the ability to communicate at an advanced level in the languages and understand the cultures of the people with whom they interact. Experts tell us we should develop long-term relationships with people from every walk of life all across the world, whether or not the languages they speak are considered critical for a particular issue or emergency. They are right. As then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz noted at the National Language Conference, ``The greater our ability to communicate with people, the easier the burden on our troops and the greater the likelihood that we can complete our missions and bring our people home safely. Even better, the greater our linguistic skill, the greater the possibility that we can resolve international differences and achieve our objectives without having to use force.'' I am proud of my own State of Hawaii, whose language patterns reflect that we are a mixing pot of varying cultures. According to the 2000 Census, more than 300,000 people or about 27 percent of those five years and older spoke a language other than English at home. This is compared to about 18 percent nationwide. Language education offerings to improve conversational proficiency with formal training in non- English languages are working to keep pace with increased demand. In addition, enrollments in foreign language courses at the University of Hawaii have been markedly increasing--a trend that I am gratified to see happening across the country. But more needs to be done both in Hawaii and the rest of the country. I am a passionate believer in beginning these programs at the earliest age possible. Americans need to be open to the world; we need to be able to see the world through the eyes of others if we are going to understand how to resolve the complex problems we face. The need to hear and understand one another is timeless and essential. An ongoing commitment to developing language and cultural expertise helps prevent a crisis from occurring and provides diplomatic and language resources when needed. We cannot afford to seek out foreign language skills after an event like 9/11 occurs. The failures of communication and understanding have already done their damage. We must provide an ongoing commitment to language education and encourage knowledge of foreign languages and cultures. The answer is simple. If we are committed to maintaining these relationships and creating a language proficient citizenry, we must have leadership. The National Foreign Language Coordination Act will provide this leadership and ensure that we are aware and involved in the world around us. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the National Language Coordination Act of 2005 which provides a framework for leading and coordination the learning of foreign languages and cultures, with my good friends Senators Cochran and Dodd. The National Foreign Language Coordination Act would create the position of a National Language Director and a National Foreign Language Coordination Council to develop and oversee the implementation of a foreign language strategy. The proposed Council, chaired by the National Language Director, would identify crucial priorities, increase public awareness of the need for foreign language skills, advocate maximum use of resources, coordinate cross-sector efforts, and monitor the foreign language activities of the Federal Government. The genesis of this legislation is a report entitled, ``A Call to Action for National Foreign Language Capabilities,'' issued by the National Language Conference held in June 2004 under the auspices of the Department of Defense. This conference was an extraordinary gathering of government, industry, academia, and language association representatives. The mission of this meeting was twofold: to discuss and deliberate initial strategic approaches to meeting the nation's language needs in the 21st century, and to identify actions that could move the United States toward a ``language-competent nation.'' It was hosted by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and by the Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL) at the University of Maryland at College Park. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the report, ``A Call to Action for National Foreign Language Capabilities,'' be printed in the Record following my remarks. I believe the recommendations of this report speak eloquently to the need for this legislation. As Dr. David Chu, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, notes in his forward to the report, ``improving the nation's foreign language capability requires immediate and long-term engagement.'' The intent of this legislation is to ensure that immediate and long- term engagement. The establishment of a National Language Director and the creation of a National Foreign Language Coordination Council will ensure that the key recommendations of the Department of Defense sponsored conference will be implemented, which include: developing policies and programs that build the nation's language and cultural understanding capability; engaging federal, state, and local agencies and the private sector in solutions; developing language and cultural competency across public and private sectors; developing language skills in a wide range of critical languages; strengthening our education system, programs, and tools in foreign languages and cultures; and integrating language training into career fields and increase the number of language professionals. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, showed how much more was needed to improve education in these critical areas. The investigations surrounding the attacks have underscored how important foreign language proficiency is to our national security. The Joint Intelligence Committee inquiry into the terrorist attacks found that prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community was not prepared to handle the challenge of translating the volumes of foreign language counter- terrorism intelligence that had been collected. Agencies within the Intelligence Community experienced backlogs in material awaiting translation and a shortage of language specialists and language- qualified field officers in the most critical terrorism-related languages used by terrorists. America needs people who understand foreign cultures and who are fluent in locally-spoken languages. The stability and economic vitality of the United States and our national security depend on American citizens who are knowledgeable about the world. We need civil servants, including law enforcement officers, teachers, area experts, diplomats, and business people with the ability to communicate at an advanced level in the languages and understand the cultures of the people with whom they interact. Experts tell us we should develop long-term relationships with people from every walk of life all across the world, whether or not the languages they speak are considered critical for a particular issue or emergency. They are right. As then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz noted at the National Language Conference, ``The greater our ability to communicate with people, the easier the burden on our troops and the greater the likelihood that we can complete our missions and bring our people home safely. Even better, the greater our linguistic skill, the greater the possibility that we can resolve international differences and achieve our objectives without having to use force.'' I am proud of my own State of Hawaii, whose language patterns reflect that we are a mixing pot of varying cultures. According to the 2000 Census, more than 300,000 people or about 27 percent of those five years and older spoke a language other than English at home. This is compared to about 18 percent nationwide. Language education offerings to improve conversational proficiency with formal training in non- English languages are working to keep pace with increased demand. In addition, enrollments in foreign language courses at the University of Hawaii have been markedly increasing--a trend that I am gratified to see happening across the country. But more needs to be done both in Hawaii and the rest of the country. I am a passionate believer in beginning these programs at the earliest age possible. Americans need to be open to the world; we need to be able to see the world through the eyes of others if we are going to understand how to resolve the complex problems we face. The need to hear and understand one another is timeless and essential. An ongoing commitment to developing language and cultural expertise helps prevent a crisis from occurring and provides diplomatic and language resources when needed. We cannot afford to seek out foreign language skills after an event like 9/11 occurs. The failures of communication and understanding have already done their damage. We must provide an ongoing commitment to language education and encourage knowledge of foreign languages and cultures. The answer is simple. If we are committed to maintaining these relationships and creating a language proficient citizenry, we must have leadership. The National Foreign Language Coordination Act will provide this leadership and ensure that we are aware and involved in the world around us. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mutual Fund Transparency Act of 2005. Mutual funds are vital investment vehicles for middle-income Americans that offer diversification and professional money management. Mutual funds are what average investors rely on for retirement, savings for children's college education, or other financial goals and dreams. I was outraged by the widespread abuses in the industry. Ordinary investors were being harmed due to the greed of brokers, mutual fund companies, and institutional and large investors. That is why I introduced the Mutual Fund Transparency Act in November 2003 with my colleagues Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Lieberman. I want to thank the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, William Donaldson, for his courageous leadership. Chairman Donaldson has demonstrated a commitment to bring about reforms that better protect investors. I applaud the SEC's enforcement and regulatory efforts in addressing weaknesses and abuses in the mutual fund industry. The SEC has adopted several reforms that mirror provisions found in my original Mutual Fund Transparency Act. In July 2004, the SEC adopted reforms requiring mutual funds, with certain exemptive rules, to have an independent chairman and ensure that 75 percent of their board members are independent. Although the SEC has undertaken a number of impressive reforms, I have chosen to reintroduce a modified version of my original bill to further strengthen the independence of boards, make investors more aware of the true costs of their mutual funds, and prevent several key reforms from being rolled back. It is also important to legislatively address areas where the SEC needs additional statutory authority. Legislation is needed to ensure that the increased independence rule applied universally among mutual funds. My bill includes a number of provisions intended to strengthen mutual fund boards. It will require that mutual fund boards have independent chairmen and that 75 percent of their directors be independent. My bill strengthens the definition of who is considered an independent director and requires independent directors to be approved by shareholders. These steps are necessary to strengthen the ability of mutual fund boards to detect and prevent abuses of investor trust. My bill will also increase the transparency of the complex financial relationships between brokers and mutual funds in ways that are both meaningful and easy to understand for investors. Shelf-space payments and revenue-sharing agreements between mutual fund companies and brokers present conflicts of interest that must be addressed. Brokers have conflicts of interest, some of which are unavoidable, but these need to be disclosed to investors. Without such disclosure, investors cannot make informed financial decisions. Investors may believe that brokers are recommending funds based on the expectation for solid returns or low volatility, when the broker's recommendation may be influenced by hidden payments. This legislation will require brokers to disclose in writing the amount of compensation the broker will receive due to the transaction, instead of simply providing a prospectus. Currently, the prospectus fails to include the detailed relevant information that investors need to make informed decisions. The SEC has requested comments on a proposal to require a confirmation notice, as well as increased point-of-sale disclosures, to provide investors with more information about broker conflicts in mutual fund transactions. The SEC is reviewing comments on its proposal, and studying other possibilities. I have included a point-of- sale disclosure requirement in my legislation that was absent in the prior bill. In my bill, investors would have to be provided with the amount of differential payments and average fees for comparable transactions. My legislation also requires that confirmation notices be provided for mutual fund transactions, which will include how their broker was compensated. To further increase the transparency of the actual costs of the fund, brokerage commissions must be counted as an expense in filings with the SEC and included in the calculation of the expense ratio. Consumers often compare the expense ratios of funds when making investment decisions. However, the expense ratios fail to take into account the cost of commissions in the purchase and sale of securities. Therefore, investors are not provided with a complete and accurate idea of the expenses involved with owning that fund. Currently, brokerage commissions are disclosed to the SEC, but not to individual investors. Right now, brokerage commissions are only disclosed to the investor upon request. My bill puts teeth into brokerage commission disclosure provisions and ensures that commissions will be included in a document that investors have access to and can utilize. The inclusion of brokerage commissions in the expense ratio creates a powerful incentive to reduce the use of soft dollars. Soft dollars can be used to lower expenses, since most purchases using soft dollars do not count as expenses and are not calculated into the expense ratio. There have been calls for the prohibition of soft dollars. This is a recommendation that needs to be further examined. My bill provides an alternative, which is an incentive for funds to limit the use of soft dollars by identifying them as expenses. If commissions are disclosed in this manner, the use of soft dollars will be reflected in the higher commission fees and overall expenses. This makes it easier for investors to see the true cost of the fund and compare the expense ratios of funds. Some may argue that this approach gives an incomplete picture and fails to account for spreads, market impact, and opportunity costs. However, the SEC has the authority to address the issue further if it can determine an effective way to quantify these additional factors. My bill does not impose additional reporting requirements that would be burdensome to brokers. It merely uses what is already reported and presents this information in a manner meaningful to investors. Another important provision in my bill requires the SEC to conduct a study to assess financial literacy among mutual fund investors. This study is necessary because any additional disclosure requirements for mutual funds will not truly work unless investors are given the tools they need to make smart investment decisions. Mr. President, my legislation will ensure that mutual fund boards are independent and that investors are provided with more relevant and meaningful disclosures from which they can make better informed choices. I look forward to continue working with my colleagues and the SEC to better protect investors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of my legislation from Fund Democracy, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, and Consumers Union, as well as a letter of support from AARP, be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of my legislation from Fund Democracy, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, and Consumers Union, as well as a letter of support from AARP, be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mutual Fund Transparency Act of 2005. Mutual funds are vital investment vehicles for middle-income Americans that offer diversification and professional money management. Mutual funds are what average investors rely on for retirement, savings for children's college education, or other financial goals and dreams. I was outraged by the widespread abuses in the industry. Ordinary investors were being harmed due to the greed of brokers, mutual fund companies, and institutional and large investors. That is why I introduced the Mutual Fund Transparency Act in November 2003 with my colleagues Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Lieberman. I want to thank the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, William Donaldson, for his courageous leadership. Chairman Donaldson has demonstrated a commitment to bring about reforms that better protect investors. I applaud the SEC's enforcement and regulatory efforts in addressing weaknesses and abuses in the mutual fund industry. The SEC has adopted several reforms that mirror provisions found in my original Mutual Fund Transparency Act. In July 2004, the SEC adopted reforms requiring mutual funds, with certain exemptive rules, to have an independent chairman and ensure that 75 percent of their board members are independent. Although the SEC has undertaken a number of impressive reforms, I have chosen to reintroduce a modified version of my original bill to further strengthen the independence of boards, make investors more aware of the true costs of their mutual funds, and prevent several key reforms from being rolled back. It is also important to legislatively address areas where the SEC needs additional statutory authority. Legislation is needed to ensure that the increased independence rule applied universally among mutual funds. My bill includes a number of provisions intended to strengthen mutual fund boards. It will require that mutual fund boards have independent chairmen and that 75 percent of their directors be independent. My bill strengthens the definition of who is considered an independent director and requires independent directors to be approved by shareholders. These steps are necessary to strengthen the ability of mutual fund boards to detect and prevent abuses of investor trust. My bill will also increase the transparency of the complex financial relationships between brokers and mutual funds in ways that are both meaningful and easy to understand for investors. Shelf-space payments and revenue-sharing agreements between mutual fund companies and brokers present conflicts of interest that must be addressed. Brokers have conflicts of interest, some of which are unavoidable, but these need to be disclosed to investors. Without such disclosure, investors cannot make informed financial decisions. Investors may believe that brokers are recommending funds based on the expectation for solid returns or low volatility, when the broker's recommendation may be influenced by hidden payments. This legislation will require brokers to disclose in writing the amount of compensation the broker will receive due to the transaction, instead of simply providing a prospectus. Currently, the prospectus fails to include the detailed relevant information that investors need to make informed decisions. The SEC has requested comments on a proposal to require a confirmation notice, as well as increased point-of-sale disclosures, to provide investors with more information about broker conflicts in mutual fund transactions. The SEC is reviewing comments on its proposal, and studying other possibilities. I have included a point-of- sale disclosure requirement in my legislation that was absent in the prior bill. In my bill, investors would have to be provided with the amount of differential payments and average fees for comparable transactions. My legislation also requires that confirmation notices be provided for mutual fund transactions, which will include how their broker was compensated. To further increase the transparency of the actual costs of the fund, brokerage commissions must be counted as an expense in filings with the SEC and included in the calculation of the expense ratio. Consumers often compare the expense ratios of funds when making investment decisions. However, the expense ratios fail to take into account the cost of commissions in the purchase and sale of securities. Therefore, investors are not provided with a complete and accurate idea of the expenses involved with owning that fund. Currently, brokerage commissions are disclosed to the SEC, but not to individual investors. Right now, brokerage commissions are only disclosed to the investor upon request. My bill puts teeth into brokerage commission disclosure provisions and ensures that commissions will be included in a document that investors have access to and can utilize. The inclusion of brokerage commissions in the expense ratio creates a powerful incentive to reduce the use of soft dollars. Soft dollars can be used to lower expenses, since most purchases using soft dollars do not count as expenses and are not calculated into the expense ratio. There have been calls for the prohibition of soft dollars. This is a recommendation that needs to be further examined. My bill provides an alternative, which is an incentive for funds to limit the use of soft dollars by identifying them as expenses. If commissions are disclosed in this manner, the use of soft dollars will be reflected in the higher commission fees and overall expenses. This makes it easier for investors to see the true cost of the fund and compare the expense ratios of funds. Some may argue that this approach gives an incomplete picture and fails to account for spreads, market impact, and opportunity costs. However, the SEC has the authority to address the issue further if it can determine an effective way to quantify these additional factors. My bill does not impose additional reporting requirements that would be burdensome to brokers. It merely uses what is already reported and presents this information in a manner meaningful to investors. Another important provision in my bill requires the SEC to conduct a study to assess financial literacy among mutual fund investors. This study is necessary because any additional disclosure requirements for mutual funds will not truly work unless investors are given the tools they need to make smart investment decisions. Mr. President, my legislation will ensure that mutual fund boards are independent and that investors are provided with more relevant and meaningful disclosures from which they can make better informed choices. I look forward to continue working with my colleagues and the SEC to better protect investors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I will not ask for time. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I celebrate the hard work and dedication of all nurses that serve the veterans of our great Nation. In particular, I congratulate the recipients of the Secretary's Award for Excellence in Nursing and Advancement of Nursing Programs. These recipients were nominated for dedication to their profession and for outstanding service to our veterans and to the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. The honor bestowed on these individuals is greatly deserved. The 2005 Nursing Award Recipients for Excellence in Nursing include: Marthe Moseley, Kim Pyatt, Ferris Jones, and John Cheng. The recipients of the 2005 Award for the Advancement of Nursing Programs are Timothy B. Williams and Rebecca Newson Williams. All these individuals have demonstrated high level of achievement and dedication through their service with VA. Marthe Moseley, PhD, RN, CCRN, CCNS, is an award recipient from the South Texas Veterans Health Care System. Dr. Moseley coordinates and evaluates integrated programs that demonstrate clinical excellence in the field of orientation, competency development and implementation. She has been a key consultant to entities such as the National Dialysis Conference; Brook Army Medical Center; and Wilford Hall Medical Center, Air Force. Dr. Moseley has been a leader in improving the quality and effectiveness of care for critically ill patients. Kim Pyatt, RN, BSN, of the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, has been an outstanding and positive nurse for the past 5 years. She served as a staff nurse and a night charge nurse in the Nursing Home Care Unit, NHCU, before being selected as the Geriatrics and Extended Care Wound coordinator in 2002. Ms. Pyatt has a great passion for veterans and for providing excellent nursing care in the NHCU. Ferris Jones, LPN, works in the Puget Sound Health Care System with the Mental Health Service in the Homeless Care Line, Domiciliary Care Program, and also through a residential program that treats veterans for post traumatic sress disorder. His strong medical background, training in the U.S. Army, and experience in mental health have worked together to set a standard of excellence. He has contributed to quality of care through evaluations of procedures for the Domiciliary Care Program and the development of an educational orientation video for those newly admitted to the program. John Cheng, from the Northport VA Medical Center, has been a nursing assistant in Extended Care since 1998. Mr. Cheng as continued to provide top quality, as well as encouragement, to his veteran patients. Mr. Cheng recently spent a great deal of time with a young traumatic brain injury patient who had been admitted to the NCHU. During this time, Mr. Cheng demonstrated compassion and selfless dedication to treating patients. He did the little things that are necessary during a time of extended treatment, such as developing a relationship with this young patient. Mr. Cheng is also dedicated to professional growth. He is the only employee to graduate from the VA-sponsored Licensed Practical Nurse, LPN, program and is now working on achieving his registered nurse degree. Timothy B. Williams is the director of the VA Puget Sound Health Care System. Mr. Williams has worked closely with nursing and physician leadership to implement innovative strategies to optimally deliver patient care, in spite of limited resources. He has continuously sought opportunities to ensure nurse support and to encourage professional development of nursing at all levels. Mr. Williams has also been an effective supporter of VA efforts to recruit and retain nursing staff. Rebecca Newsom Williams, RN, MPH, is the associate director for Patient/Nursing Services for the VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System. In her role, Ms. Williams directs the integration of all nursing related activities throughout the VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, in collaboration with the executive leadership team. Ms. Williams has demonstrated excellence in her leadership by recognizing the need for combined research and clinical practices. As you can see, these phenomenal nurses deserve to be applauded for their accomplishments. Through their commitment and compassion to our Nation's heroes, they themselves also become heroes to our veterans. As ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I again congratulate these distinguished award recipients. They demonstrate the need and importance of excellence at every level of care giving, for every patient. In this time of critical need for nurses, it is imperative that we thank these nurses who have chosen to serve in the VA health care system for their diligence and dedication.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure and pride to announce that students from Kahuku High School, on the Island of Oahu, honorably represented Hawaii at the national finals of ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution.'' These Hawaii students joined more than 1,200 students from across the country to visit Washington, DC, and take part in national competition during the first week of May. These bright students showcased their exemplary knowledge of the U.S. Consitution, and did my State proud against competition from other States. I applaud the achievement of the Kahuku students for placing in the Top 10 of National Finalists out of the 51 schools participating. The ``We the People'' program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and is an extensive educational program developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The 3-day competition is modeled after hearings in the U.S. Congress and provides students with the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge before a panel of adult judges while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by questions designed to probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. I recognize the following 23 Kahuku students who proudly represented the State of Hawaii: Genevieve Allen, Yesenia Arevalo, Amanda Baize, Bonnie Cameron, Meri Ching, Dannah Christensen, Krystle Corpuz, Oliver Howells, Lorna Kekua, Jokke Kokkonen, Jacquelyn Lautaha, William Law, Catalina Markowitz, Ajri McArthur, Sara Mirels, Brad Rasmussen, Ashley Rillamas, Lizette Sauque, Noelle Spring, Shirly Tagayuna, Joseph Trisolini, and Morgan Wright. I especially thank their teacher, Ms. Sandra Cashman, for once again seizing this opportunity to educate students about the significance of the American institutions of constitutional democracy. The mere fact that Kahuku students competed here for 11 of the last 12 ``We the People'' competitions is a testament to Ms. Cashman's skills as a civics education teacher. As a former Kahuku High School teacher, I take pride in these students who rose to the challenges presented in this competition, and gave impressive performances. I know that it is because of school and parental support, dedication, and commitment that these students were empowered and encouraged to excel in this arena. These students have no doubt made everyone in their school, their families, and their friends proud of what they achieved. We should all recognize that they are learning and advocating the fundamental ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. The zeal and diligence these students showed in their understanding of Government ought to serve as a symbol for all citizens to pursue.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Safe Storage of Radiological Materials Act of 2005 to prevent sealed radioactive sources, which can be used to create ``dirty bombs,'' from getting into the hands of terrorists. This bill is similar to S. 1045, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Act, which I introduced in 2003. Since September 11, 2001, the Congress has faced the challenge of anticipating where the next attack on the United States will come from and in what form it will come. It is important to weigh where to invest precious security resources, knowing everything can't be protected. Many vulnerabilities deserve serious attention. Some can be addressed with relative ease. Thousands of unwanted sealed radioactive sources are currently held by the private sector, research institutions, and medical laboratories where these sources are generally unprotected and accessible. An April 2003 report I requested from the Government Accountability Office, GAO, entitled ``Nuclear Proliferation: DOE Action Needed to Ensure Continued Recovery of Unwanted Sealed Radioactive Sources,'' stated that ``if these sealed sources fell into the hands of terrorists, they could be used as simple and crude but potentially dangerous radiological weapons, commonly called dirty bombs.'' Most experts agree that it would not require much scientific expertise or funding to cobble together a dirty bomb from radioactive material. In other words, the required materials are accessible and the assembly is relatively rudimentary. The GAO report focused on greater-than-class-C, GTCC, sealed sources. GTCC radiological sources are the ``high end'' of the continuum of low- level radioactive waste. Class A, B, and C wastes can generally be disposed of at existing commercial disposal facilities. But wastes that exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's criteria for Class C, known as greater-than-class-C wastes, are potent enough that they cannot be disposed of at existing facilities. While GTCC wastes are not as dangerous as high-level radioactive waste and therefore are not considered the highest security priority, they are the most potent of low level waste and necessitate progressively more stringent disposal requirements. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments of 1985, P.L. 99- 240, required the Department of Energy, DOE, to provide a facility for disposing of all GTCC radioactive waste, including GTCC sealed sources that are no longer utilized by their owners. GAO found that little to no work had been done to designate a permanent disposal site. Although DOE has said that the facility will be up and running by 2007, it seems unlikely as they have only just begun the necessary environmental impact statement process. In 1999, DOE created the Off-Site Source Recovery Project, OSRP, to recover unwanted GTCC sealed sources and temporarily house them at the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory. According to GAO testimony before the Senate Energy Committee in September 2004, approximately 10,000 GTCC sealed sources from about 160 sites across the U.S. had been recovered to date. However, approximately 8,000 sources still remained in insecure facilities at the time of the hearing. The job is not done, but the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the division within DOE responsible for the U.S. Radiological Threat Reduction, USRTR, previously the OSRP, has made great strides. Since I first introduced S. 1045, the Low Level Radioactive Waste Act, in May 2003, the prioritization of off-site recovery of GTCC sources has heightened. DOE received a $10 million supplemental for the program in 2003 and the President's fiscal year 06 budget proposes funding the USRTR at $12.75 million, up 69 percent from the fiscal year 05 enacted level of $7.54 million. Earlier this month, NNSA called to let me know it intended to remove 100 sources of cobalt-60, which is GTCC, from the University of Hawaii. The University had been trying to get DOE, the owners of the material, to dispose of the sources for years. The radioactive material was used in an irradiator and loaned to the University back in the 1960s for agricultural research. I am grateful that NNSA stepped up its recovery of unneeded radiological sources and helped to relieve the burden of guarding potentially dangerous material from the University administration. The progress made by NNSA, while appreciated and laudable, is nonetheless a first step. Without the designation of a permanent disposal facility for GTCC waste, DOE will run out of temporary storage space. The Department already encountered problems finding a place to store strontium-90, cesium-137, and plutonium-239, all GTCC sources that have unique storage requirements. A permanent disposal facility that can accommodate all GTCC waste must be identified. The Safe Storage of Radiological Materials Act of 2005 would require DOE to report to Congress on the current situation and future plans for disposal alternatives for GTCC radioactive waste and the cost and schedule to complete an environmental impact statement and record of decision on a permanent disposal facility for GTCC radioactive wastes. My bill would also require DOE to provide Congress with a plan for the short-term recovery of GTCC radioactive waste until a permanent facility is available. This legislation parallels the recommendations of the April 2003 GAO report, and I believe enactment of this bill is critical to securing sealed sources of nuclear material. Twenty years is too long to wait for an agency to do its job. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Safe Storage of Radiological Materials Act of 2005 to prevent sealed radioactive sources, which can be used to create ``dirty bombs,'' from getting into the hands of terrorists. This bill is similar to S. 1045, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Act, which I introduced in 2003. Since September 11, 2001, the Congress has faced the challenge of anticipating where the next attack on the United States will come from and in what form it will come. It is important to weigh where to invest precious security resources, knowing everything can't be protected. Many vulnerabilities deserve serious attention. Some can be addressed with relative ease. Thousands of unwanted sealed radioactive sources are currently held by the private sector, research institutions, and medical laboratories where these sources are generally unprotected and accessible. An April 2003 report I requested from the Government Accountability Office, GAO, entitled ``Nuclear Proliferation: DOE Action Needed to Ensure Continued Recovery of Unwanted Sealed Radioactive Sources,'' stated that ``if these sealed sources fell into the hands of terrorists, they could be used as simple and crude but potentially dangerous radiological weapons, commonly called dirty bombs.'' Most experts agree that it would not require much scientific expertise or funding to cobble together a dirty bomb from radioactive material. In other words, the required materials are accessible and the assembly is relatively rudimentary. The GAO report focused on greater-than-class-C, GTCC, sealed sources. GTCC radiological sources are the ``high end'' of the continuum of low- level radioactive waste. Class A, B, and C wastes can generally be disposed of at existing commercial disposal facilities. But wastes that exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's criteria for Class C, known as greater-than-class-C wastes, are potent enough that they cannot be disposed of at existing facilities. While GTCC wastes are not as dangerous as high-level radioactive waste and therefore are not considered the highest security priority, they are the most potent of low level waste and necessitate progressively more stringent disposal requirements. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments of 1985, P.L. 99- 240, required the Department of Energy, DOE, to provide a facility for disposing of all GTCC radioactive waste, including GTCC sealed sources that are no longer utilized by their owners. GAO found that little to no work had been done to designate a permanent disposal site. Although DOE has said that the facility will be up and running by 2007, it seems unlikely as they have only just begun the necessary environmental impact statement process. In 1999, DOE created the Off-Site Source Recovery Project, OSRP, to recover unwanted GTCC sealed sources and temporarily house them at the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory. According to GAO testimony before the Senate Energy Committee in September 2004, approximately 10,000 GTCC sealed sources from about 160 sites across the U.S. had been recovered to date. However, approximately 8,000 sources still remained in insecure facilities at the time of the hearing. The job is not done, but the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the division within DOE responsible for the U.S. Radiological Threat Reduction, USRTR, previously the OSRP, has made great strides. Since I first introduced S. 1045, the Low Level Radioactive Waste Act, in May 2003, the prioritization of off-site recovery of GTCC sources has heightened. DOE received a $10 million supplemental for the program in 2003 and the President's fiscal year 06 budget proposes funding the USRTR at $12.75 million, up 69 percent from the fiscal year 05 enacted level of $7.54 million. Earlier this month, NNSA called to let me know it intended to remove 100 sources of cobalt-60, which is GTCC, from the University of Hawaii. The University had been trying to get DOE, the owners of the material, to dispose of the sources for years. The radioactive material was used in an irradiator and loaned to the University back in the 1960s for agricultural research. I am grateful that NNSA stepped up its recovery of unneeded radiological sources and helped to relieve the burden of guarding potentially dangerous material from the University administration. The progress made by NNSA, while appreciated and laudable, is nonetheless a first step. Without the designation of a permanent disposal facility for GTCC waste, DOE will run out of temporary storage space. The Department already encountered problems finding a place to store strontium-90, cesium-137, and plutonium-239, all GTCC sources that have unique storage requirements. A permanent disposal facility that can accommodate all GTCC waste must be identified. The Safe Storage of Radiological Materials Act of 2005 would require DOE to report to Congress on the current situation and future plans for disposal alternatives for GTCC radioactive waste and the cost and schedule to complete an environmental impact statement and record of decision on a permanent disposal facility for GTCC radioactive wastes. My bill would also require DOE to provide Congress with a plan for the short-term recovery of GTCC radioactive waste until a permanent facility is available. This legislation parallels the recommendations of the April 2003 GAO report, and I believe enactment of this bill is critical to securing sealed sources of nuclear material. Twenty years is too long to wait for an agency to do its job. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the conference report for the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution and associate my remarks with those of many of my colleagues. My reasons start with missed opportunities and misplaced priorities, added to fiscal irresponsibility. I could support this measure if it provided enough funding for education, for veterans, for health care, for law enforcement. But it fails in many ways in these areas and, instead, gives priority to tax cuts largely for the well-off. It also masks the full story by leaving out recent war costs, estimated costs for the President's reform plan for Social Security, and costs for fixing the alternative minimum tax that is extending into the middle class. It is terrible that the conference report includes reconciled tax cuts of $70 billion that will drive our Nation further and further into debt. Moreover, it is dismaying that these tax cuts would be funded at the expense of working families. Health care costs are increasing. Our health care providers are confronted with inadequate reimbursements, rising costs, and an increasing demand to provide care for the uninsured. I have met with many of my own constituents, particularly doctors, nurses, and administrators, who have conveyed to me their deep concerns with their ability to continue to provide treatment for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries because the reimbursement costs are so low. The providers are unable to adequately meet their costs of providing care to beneficiaries. The reductions in Medicaid included in the budget resolution will lead to further cuts in coverage and benefits for people without other health insurance. The cuts will prevent individuals from being able to access health care, which will increase the burden on our public health system. The Medicaid cuts will further erode the ability of hospitals, clinics, physicians, and other medical providers to meet the health care needs of our communities. Medicaid programs are demanding a larger share of State spending than they have in recent years. Reducing the Federal commitment to Medicaid will push additional costs to the States and increase the number of people who are uninsured or underinsured. Shifting the burden of providing essential health care services to States and to providers is irresponsible. We need to work together to slow health care costs, but not by cutting programs on which so many people depend. Medicaid is an essential part of the public safety net in my State, where Medicaid and QUEST provided essential health services to nearly 190,000 people in 2002. QUEST is Hawaii's Medicaid expansion program that provides health coverage through managed care plans for eligible lower-income residents. Medicaid is an essential part of the health care safety net in all of our States. Denying treatment to people in need to support more reckless tax cuts for the wealthy is a significant mistake. Cuts in Medicaid and other programs, such as Medicare, will cause real pain to real people. I am deeply frustrated that we are no longer able to move legislation forward that expands access to health care. Instead, access is being reduced through poorly thought out arbitrary cuts that will have detrimental effects on working families across the country. The conference report also fails veterans. VA hospitals and clinics are already in difficult financial straits. Hospitals are millions of dollars in the red. Outdated medical equipment cannot be replaced. Nursing home beds are being closed. And large groups of veterans are being denied care. If the level of funding included in the budget resolution comes to fruition, things will continue to deteriorate. It is abundantly clear that VA needs an additional $2.8 billion more than it was provided last year. The conference report does not include this level of funding. I remind my colleagues that payroll and inflation increases for doctors, nurses, and medications cost more than $1 billion. Simply maintaining current services may not be enough to ensure that VA can meet the health care needs of veterans. Chronic illnesses of our aging veterans population and newly recognized challenges--such as the need to shape new programs for veterans affected by hepatitis C--will further strain VA's resources. We must anticipate increased and changing demands for treating complex diseases, such as hepatitis C, and ensure that veterans with multiple, overlapping medical problems receive all the treatment that they need. Additionally, we must be certain that VA has the resources it needs to care for those servicemembers returning from Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. This became all the more important when the Senate rejected my amendment to add funding for VA to the war supplemental. The budget resolution does nothing to provide the resources to rescind the ban on Priority 8 veterans from coming to VA for care. So far, 192,260 veterans have been turned away across the country, including 502 in my home State of Hawaii. We are even starting to see other groups of veterans being denied access to care. This sends the wrong message to our troops overseas. When you add up payroll and inflation, new workload, and new initiatives, and factor in funding to support rescinding the ban on Priority 8 veterans, it is my view that VA needs at least a $2.8 billion increase in funding for fiscal year 2006. The budget resolution falls short. Every time we work on a budget resolution I have to ask why education continues to be behind the curve. We tried to fix the anticipated cuts in education funding when the resolution was considered by this body in March, and although we were rebuffed on most amendments offered by my side of the aisle, I was heartened to see several of my colleagues across the aisle vote with us on the Kennedy higher education and workforce amendment. Unfortunately, although the Senate spoke, conferees did not agree. Rather than sticking with the Senate position on important programs such as career and technical education, GEAR UP, TRIO, and workforce investment, the conference report before us continues to underfund or outright eliminate funding that these programs require to be successful. In addition, the conference report does nothing to cover the funding shortfall for No Child Left Behind compliance or to restore funding to 48 education programs recommended for termination in the President's budget. The list of programs includes the Excellence in Economic Education Act, which I authored to combat economic and financial literacy in grades K through 12. With regard to cuts in the area of first responders and law enforcement, the conference report slashes certain major programs, including the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The package cuts over $1 billion in aid to state and local law enforcement and completely eliminates the COPS hiring program--both universal and school resource officers--in what is the fourth year in a row where such cuts are being made. During consideration of the budget in the Senate, an amendment attempted to restore funding to this vital program. Unfortunately, this, too, was not adopted. In addition, the budget would deny resources to many of our first responders: firefighters, police, EMS workers and other first responders. The budget creates a shortfall of more than $1.6 billion with cuts to first responder programs, including the State Homeland Security grant program, Urban Area Security Initiative, firefighter assistance grants, the COPS program as I mentioned before, and Byrne Justice Assistance grants. An amendment to restore funding to our first responders was considered when the Senate took up the budget in March; however, we were again unsuccessful in restoring funding to these programs. It is clear to me that this budget conference report fails families and communities across this country, including in my State of Hawaii. For these many reasons, I am unable to support the conference report. I urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join Senator Inouye in support of the nomination of Mr. J. Michael Seabright for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. The Hawaii State Bar Association has found Mr. Seabright to be highly qualified for the position of U.S. District Court Judge in Hawaii. This is of significant importance to me, as I value the opinion of Hawaii's legal community in evaluating those nominated to serve as judges. Mr. Seabright has practiced law in the State of Hawaii for over 20 years, in a number of capacities, including both private practice and public service. Mr. Seabright has been employed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Hawaii for the past 15 years, and he has headed the white-collar and organized crime section since 2002. I am very pleased that this position, after being vacant for so many years, will now be filled by an individual as qualified as J. Michael Seabright. For the past few years, I have heard from jurists and a number of attorneys in Hawaii about the need to fill this judicial vacancy. I am encouraged to see that with the consideration of this nominee the Senate will continue its tradition of fulfilling its advice and consent role under the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Mr. Seabright's nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to offer legislation that would make the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Pilot Program permanent. In April 1992, I sponsored a bill that established the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Pilot Program. That bill later became Public Law 102-547 and authorized the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish a pilot program that would provide veterans with assistance in purchasing, constructing, and improving homes through 1997. This pilot program has been extended several times. In fact, last Session Congress extended this pilot program by three years. Through January of this year, 443 loans were created under this program. It is time to make this program permanent. The Native American home ownership rate is about half the rate of the general U.S. population. This issue partially stems from the fact that lenders generally require that buyers own the parcel of land on which their homes will be located. This is difficult for many in Indian Country, Alaska, and Hawaii because their homes are on trust lands. Most lenders decline these loan applications because Federal law prohibits a lender from taking possession of Native trust lands in the event of a default. Several Federal programs have been developed to provide home ownership opportunities to Native Americans. The Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program is one such program that has helped to make home ownership a reality for indigenous peoples, particularly Native Hawaiians. Under this program, VA offers loan guaranties that protect lenders against loss up to the amount of the guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the loan. Previous to the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program, Native American veterans who resided on these lands were unable to qualify for VA home-loan benefits. With the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program, indigenous peoples residing on trust lands are now able to use this very important VA benefit. The Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program is intended to serve veterans who are eligible for homes under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, and who reside on Pacific Islands lands that have been communally owned by cultural tradition and on Native American trust lands on the continental United States. This VA-administered program assists Native American veterans by providing them direct loans to build or purchase homes on such lands. Before VA can make a loan on tribal trust land, the tribe must enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with VA to clarify some of the issues that could arise when administering the program. During fiscal year 2004, VA entered into two Memoranda of Understanding with tribal entities. In addition, VA is currently negotiating nine Memoranda of Understanding with Native American tribes. Trust lands that are eligible for this program include tribally and individually held trusts. Per a Memorandum of Understanding between VA and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), VA and BIA Regional Offices work to implement this loan program together. Additionally, VA personnel continue to conduct outreach with tribal representatives to solicit assistance in reaching out to tribal members who are veterans. Per capita, Native Americans have the highest percentage of people serving in the United States Armed Forces. While they represent less that 1 percent of the population, they make up 1.6 percent of the Armed Forces. I want to reiterate that through January of 2005, 443 loans have been made to Native Americans under this program. This allows those who have served our nation so honorably and their families to be a part of the American Dream of home ownership. We need to make the Native American Veteran Housing Loan permanent this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to offer legislation that would make the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Pilot Program permanent. In April 1992, I sponsored a bill that established the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Pilot Program. That bill later became Public Law 102-547 and authorized the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish a pilot program that would provide veterans with assistance in purchasing, constructing, and improving homes through 1997. This pilot program has been extended several times. In fact, last Session Congress extended this pilot program by three years. Through January of this year, 443 loans were created under this program. It is time to make this program permanent. The Native American home ownership rate is about half the rate of the general U.S. population. This issue partially stems from the fact that lenders generally require that buyers own the parcel of land on which their homes will be located. This is difficult for many in Indian Country, Alaska, and Hawaii because their homes are on trust lands. Most lenders decline these loan applications because Federal law prohibits a lender from taking possession of Native trust lands in the event of a default. Several Federal programs have been developed to provide home ownership opportunities to Native Americans. The Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program is one such program that has helped to make home ownership a reality for indigenous peoples, particularly Native Hawaiians. Under this program, VA offers loan guaranties that protect lenders against loss up to the amount of the guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the loan. Previous to the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program, Native American veterans who resided on these lands were unable to qualify for VA home-loan benefits. With the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program, indigenous peoples residing on trust lands are now able to use this very important VA benefit. The Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program is intended to serve veterans who are eligible for homes under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, and who reside on Pacific Islands lands that have been communally owned by cultural tradition and on Native American trust lands on the continental United States. This VA-administered program assists Native American veterans by providing them direct loans to build or purchase homes on such lands. Before VA can make a loan on tribal trust land, the tribe must enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with VA to clarify some of the issues that could arise when administering the program. During fiscal year 2004, VA entered into two Memoranda of Understanding with tribal entities. In addition, VA is currently negotiating nine Memoranda of Understanding with Native American tribes. Trust lands that are eligible for this program include tribally and individually held trusts. Per a Memorandum of Understanding between VA and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), VA and BIA Regional Offices work to implement this loan program together. Additionally, VA personnel continue to conduct outreach with tribal representatives to solicit assistance in reaching out to tribal members who are veterans. Per capita, Native Americans have the highest percentage of people serving in the United States Armed Forces. While they represent less that 1 percent of the population, they make up 1.6 percent of the Armed Forces. I want to reiterate that through January of 2005, 443 loans have been made to Native Americans under this program. This allows those who have served our nation so honorably and their families to be a part of the American Dream of home ownership. We need to make the Native American Veteran Housing Loan permanent this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, so often we talk about collaboration between the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense. Today, we have a terrific example of such sharing. I specifically want to call attention to an innovative training program for nurse anesthetists. In an attempt to maximize scarce resources, VA and the U.S. Army have pulled together their resources to help prepare VA for fields in anesthesia. Out of this joint VA/DOD effort has transpired one of the top Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist programs in the country. The program offered at the U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School at Fort Sam Houston, TX, has been said by its students to provide top of the line Army training in the field of nurse anesthesia. This type of training can be carried over to VA and will promote a seamless transition for those servicemembers that need continued treatment upon return from active duty. In addition to the clinical training, during the second phase of the program, the students also receive invaluable lessons that simply cannot be taught in just any training facility. By sitting side by side with Army and Air Force classmates, the students are able to gain a greater appreciation and understanding for the different branches of the armed services and the culture of the military. Knowing that they are being cared for by someone who understands their background and by someone who speaks their language, veterans are provided with a level of comfort that can only be beneficial as they receive health care treatment. This VA/DOD nurse anesthesia training program only provides a glimpse of the strides VA is making and hopefully will continue to make in training and educating current and future health care workers--despite budget constraints. I applaud VA for its leadership to the health care community and for its collaborative efforts to ensure quality health care. As ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I will continue to fight for veterans and make sure that they receive the health care that they deserve.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this important and timely amendment. This amendment will go far to ease the financial burden that is placed on a service member and his or her loved ones as a result of traumatic injury. Between $25,000 and $100,000 will be paid to service members who suffer such injuries based on severity of injury. Service members and their families face heavy financial burdens while hospitalized, and prior to being medically discharged from the military. This effort will help lessen the burden that exists on service members and their families before VA benefits kick in. Importantly, to qualify for this necessary benefit, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines do not have to do any additional paperwork. They are automatically enrolled in this program by virtue of being a participant in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Program. The insurance premium will cost the service member approximately $1 a month and will be determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This insurance policy is meant to supplement, and not take the place of, existing DoD and VA benefits. This amendment is intended to fill a gap: assistance to service members and their families during recovery from a traumatic injury. In no way should anyone view this as a precedence for shifting costs to a service member.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to America's public servants. Whether it is at the Federal, State, or local level, the men and women who choose public service provide essential services that we rely on every day. As the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, I am pleased to submit a resolution honoring these employees and celebrating Public Service Recognition Week. I am delighted to be joined by the leadership of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senators Voinovich, Collins, Lieberman, Coleman, Levin, Coburn, and Carper. The 21st anniversary of Public Service Recognition Week, which takes place the week of May 2, 2005, showcases the talented individuals who serve their country as Federal, State and local government employees, both civilian and military. From Hawaii to Maine, throughout the Nation, and around the world, public employees use the week to educate their fellow citizens on Government services make life better for all of us and the exciting challenges of a career in public service. Public servants are teachers, members of the Armed Forces, civilian defense workers, postal employees, food inspectors, law enforcement officers, firemen, social workers, crossing guards, and road engineers. They deliver essential Government services; defend our freedom; go above and beyond the call of duty to notify the public of Government waste, fraud, abuse; and respond with professionalism and honor during emergencies. They deserve our respect and gratitude for their dedication and service to this country. As the conflict in Iraq continues, as well as the global war on terrorism, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the brave men and women who have given their lives for their country. Over 1,500 Americans have lost their lives in defense of freedom since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Members of the Federal civilian workforce work side-by-side with members of the Armed Services and are crucial to our Nation's defense, security, and general welfare. Like those who came before them and those who are yet to come, our military and civilian support staff show courage in the face of adversity and deserve our admiration and respect. Public Service Recognition Week provides an opportunity to honor and celebrate the commitment of individuals who serve the needs of the Nation as Government and municipal employees. It is also a time to call on a new generation of Americans to consider public service. Through job fairs, special exhibits, and agency sponsored education programs, Public Service Recognition Week provides an opportunity for individuals to gain a deeper understanding of the exciting and challenging work in the Federal Government. I encourage my colleagues to recognize Federal employees in their States, as well as State and local government employees, and to let them know how much their work is appreciated. I invite my colleagues to join in the annual celebration.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been a recognized leader in the treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD. With its outreach efforts and expert mental health staff, VA has made great strides in its treatment of those suffering from the psychological wounds of war. Unfortunately, VA still has a long way to go before it will achieve the level of PTSD treatment our veterans deserve. Demonstrating this fact is a February 2005 GAO report, which found that VA has not fully met any of the 24 clinical care and education recommendations made in 2004 by VA's Special Committee on PTSD. Titled ``VA Should Expedite the Implementation of Recommendations Needed to Improve Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Services,'' this report raises serious concerns about VA's ability to treat our veterans' mental health. In fact, I would like to quote one of the report's most disturbing points: ``VA's delay in fully implementing the recommendations raises questions about VA's capacity to identify and treat veterans returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts who may be at risk for developing PTSD, while maintaining PTSD services for veterans currently receiving them.'' Further adding to the seriousness of this statement is that GAO reported in September 2004 that officials at six of seven VA medical facilities said they may not be able to meet an increased demand for PTSD services. Moreover, the Special Committee reported in 2004 that ``VA does not have sufficient capacity to meet the needs of new combat veterans while still providing for veterans of past wars. This is further proof of the need for increased funding for VA health care. If we do not give VA the necessary funds, how can we expect it to properly care for the flux of new veterans when it cannot even care for those it currently treats? In fact, VA officials have cited resource constraints as the primary reason for not implementing many of the Special Committee's recommendations. In all, GAO found that based on the time frames in VA's draft mental health strategic plan, 23 of the 24 recommendations may not be fully implemented until fiscal year 2007 or later. The remaining recommendation is targeted for full implementation by fiscal year 2005, 4 years after the Special Committee first recommended it. Additionally, the GAO report found that ten of the recommendations are longstanding, as they are consistent with those made in the Special Committee's first report in 1985. VA agreed then that these recommendations would improve the provision of PTSD services to veterans, yet the changes still are not scheduled for full implementation for another two years at the earliest. These delayed initiatives include developing a national PTSD education plan for VA, improving VA collaboration with DoD on PTSD education, and providing increased access to PTSD services. PTSD is caused by an extremely stressful event and can develop years after military service. Mental health experts estimate that the intensity of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan could cause more than 15 percent of servicemembers returning from these conflicts to develop PTSD, with a total of nearly 30 percent needing some kind of mental health treatment. While there is no cure for PTSD, these experts believe early identification and treatment of PTSD symptoms may lessen their severity and improve the overall quality of life for individuals with this disorder. Congress required the establishment of VA's Special Committee on PTSD in 1984, with the original purpose primarily to aid Vietnam-era veterans diagnosed with PTSD. One of the Special Committee's main charges is to carry out an ongoing assessment of VA's capacity to diagnose and treat PTSD and to make recommendations for improving VA's PTSD services. In addition, a March 20, 2005, article in the Los Angeles Times pointed out how concerned veterans' advocates and even some VA psychiatrists are with VA's handling of PTSD services, saying VA hospitals are ``flirting with disaster.'' The article highlighted the situation at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, specifically the Los Angeles VA hospital, which last year closed its psychiatric emergency room. A decade ago, VA hospitals in Los Angeles had rooms to treat 450 mentally ill patients each day. After a series of cutbacks and consolidations, however, the main hospital can now accommodate only 90 veterans overnight in its psychiatric wards. During the same 10-year period, the overall number of mental health patients treated by the VA Greater Los Angeles increased by about 28 percent, to 19,734 veterans in 2004. If this is how VA handles PTSD care for our veterans at the Nation's largest VA hospital, how does that bode for the rest of the nation? VA must make strides in its provision of mental health services and outreach efforts to servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are not careful and do not give VA proper resources, progress will be impossible. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I will work to ensure that does not happen. As such, I am pleased to tell you that today I am offering an amendment to the Supplemental to partially fix this problem. Our Nation's veterans deserve the best care possible, for both their physical wounds and mental. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Los Angeles Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. The costs of the war we are fighting today will continue to add up long after the final shot is fired, mainly in the form of veterans' health care and benefits. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to see that they are provided the care they are currently earning.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator Murray to offer an amendment to address the cost of providing health care to troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. She has made an excellent statement about what we are facing in the country and the shortfalls we have. She has taken the leadership on this and I am supporting her. We hope we will be able to continue to help our veterans with their health care. Following the 1991 Gulf war, returning servicemembers began to report unexplained illnesses and ailments that many linked to their service. Only those who had been granted a claim for a service-connected disability or demonstrated a financial need could turn to VA for health care services at that time. Reservists and Guard members were particularly vulnerable as military health care is lost after separation from service. Back in 1998, this very body voted unanimously to ensure that no combat veteran would be caught up in stringent eligibility rules and be denied treatment. Today, any servicemember who participates in the theater of combat is eligible for free VA health care for 2 full years after separation or release from active duty, without regard for strict eligibility rules. This benefit is more important than ever, especially to Reservists and Guard members. Experts calculate that about 40 percent of the lower enlisted grades in these services do not have any kind of health insurance. Because TRICARE eligibility is lost after separation or deactivation, VA is the only place many of these service members can turn. My colleagues in the Senate have already recognized the need to provide funds that would allow VA to absorb an influx of new patients from Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. In 2003, $175 million was added for VA to the supplemental appropriations bill. I point out that this amount was provided only 1 month after the war in Iraq began and before we knew about the level of troop commitment. This amendment we offer today allows VA to provide care for returning troops, without displacing those veterans currently using the system. We are now 2 years into this conflict, and VA has already begun to see real impact. Last year, VA spent $63 million on returning veterans. Using data from the first quarter, VA will spend an unbudgeted $120 million this year. Yet, the lion's share of our troops have not yet returned home, are rehabilitating in the DoD health care system, or are pending separation. The amount of this amendment, $1.9 billion, is drawn from what we know about past use of the VA health care system, coupled with what we know to be the cost associated with shoring up the system for all veterans. This is what we know: VA tells us that 20 percent of returning service members are now turning to VA for care. Using this figure and VA's costs, we know that $600 million in additional funding will be needed for returning service members alone. We also know that right now VA hospitals are running deficits of about $40 million per each health care network. Let me share some specifics: Outpatient clinics have stopped seeing even the poorest of patients, sending them hundreds of miles away to other facilities. The Townsend, MA, clinic is only seeing a tiny percent of those who need care. In Network 20, which serves the Northwest and Alaska, we have now seen the beginnings of what could very well become a nationwide trend. Priority 7 veterans, who often make as little as $26,000 a year, are being denied care, as the Network is running about a $40 million deficit. Veterans in need of treatment for PTSD or addiction treatment will have one less place to go due to the VA budget. The Psychiatric rehabilitation program at the Chillicothe VA hospital is being shut down. Thirty nursing home beds at the VA hospital in Manchester, NH, will not be opening. VA officials expect to save $1.3 million by not opening these beds. As my good friend Senator Collins has pointed out, the hospital in Togus, ME, is operating under a $14.2 million deficit. This Maine facility has a hiring freeze and cannot replace equipment. The Kansas City VA Hospital is short-staffed because they are already $10 million in the hole. The Denver VA Hospital and its affiliated clinics are $7.25 million short. The Maryland Health Care System is $14.5 million in the red already this year. The list goes on and on. The network that serves Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota is facing an overall shortfall of $61 million. South Dakota's facilities are $2.4 million short right now; Minnesota's are $25 million short; and Iowa's hospitals are at least $14 million short of what is currently needed. Bed frames are being held together by duct tape in some facilities, and cleaning staff cannot be hired to keep the facilities sanitary for patients. Health care provider positions also remain open, resulting in shortages of doctors, nurses and medical technicians, to name a few. Furthermore, Florida's facilities are $150 million in the red. And again, this has resulted in key health care specialist positions going unfilled. In a region where so many veterans and active duty service members reside, a shortfall of this magnitude is shameful. This trend towards hiring freezes and under-staffing of vital health care programs and services is one that is of great concern to me. I know that the American Federation of Government Employees is also very concerned about the measures being taken by many facilities to compensate for the numerous shortfalls around the country, and I commend AFGE for its support of this amendment. It will be impossible for VA to care for returning veterans in the midst of this kind of situation. As my colleagues can see, the amount we are asking for today is actually modest when compared to the very real deficits some parts of the country are being forced to deal with. While we know that many Members of this body have worked to see that their VA facilities remain in good condition, we must do more to ensure quality of care throughout the entire VA system. We also know that VA mental health must be improved if we are to meet the needs of returning service members. Experts predict that as many as 30 percent may need psychiatric care when they come home. Yet, we are told that the system is nowhere near ready to handle this type of workload. Steady budget cuts over the years have diminished VA mental health care capacity. GAO recently found that VA has lagged in the implementation of recommendations made by its own advisory committee on post-traumatic stress disorder to improve treatment of veterans who suffer from this very serious mental illness. Furthermore, GAO concluded that it is questionable as to whether or not VA can keep pace with the demand for mental health treatment from veterans of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. While veterans' clinics now dot the landscape, they do not have the ability to meet mental health needs. Vet Centers, which provide vital outreach and readjustment counseling to veterans of yesterday and today, have seen their workload double, but not one additional nickel has been sent their way. There are large pockets of this country without any access to VA mental health care whatsoever. Fixing these problems requires resources of at least $525 million. We know this is a conservative estimate. Advocates believe that it would take more than three times this amount to bring VA mental health care up to what it should be, but this amendment gets us going down the right track. The National Mental Health Association's letter of support for this amendment states that ``. . . the nation has no higher obligation than to heal its combatants' wounds, whether physical or mental, and it has long looked to the VA health care system to carry out that obligation. To date, however, planning and budgeting for the VA health care system has been badly flawed and is failing America's veterans, and particularly the growing numbers from war.'' I ask for unanimous consent that the association's letter, as well as one from the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran, and also Senator Byrd and Senator Murray for the time. Mr. President, the amendment before us addresses the costs of providing health care to troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. My colleagues in the Senate have already recognized the need to provide funds that would allow VA to absorb an influx of new patients from Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. We recognized that need in 2003, when Congress added $175 million for VA to the Supplemental Appropriations bill. I again point out that this amount was provided only one month after the war in Iraq began and before we knew about the level of troop commitment. Does this body believe that things are better in VA today or that massive amounts of troops will not actually come for care? I don't think so. Our amendment allows VA to provide care for returning troops--without displacing those veterans currently using the system. The amount of this amendment--$1.9 billion--is drawn from what we know about past use of the VA health care system coupled with what we know to be the costs associated with preparing VA for veterans from the global war on terror. Earlier we shared data and stories from VA hospitals and clinics across the country. My colleagues on the other side refute the fact that facilities are in crisis situation. I urge my colleagues to talk to VA personnel in their home States. Perhaps the administration is reluctant to share details of budget shortfalls. Or perhaps network directors have not been allowed to request additional money. But these deficits are real, and they are deficits which will hurt veterans. In my mind that is an emergency. To reiterate: we know of shortfalls in each and every State. The worst deficits are occurring in Florida, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Washington State, Iowa, and Ohio. These are not fiction. I urge my colleagues to do what is right for VA hospitals and the veterans served by them.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Vet Center Enhancement Act of 2005.'' This legislation would enhance care and services provided through Vet Centers. Since their establishment over 25 years ago, Vet Centers have become a safe place in the community where more and more veterans and their families have turned for assistance and services. This legislation would provide resources that Vet Centers need to serve and reach out to the growing number of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) veterans and surviving family members. The legislation would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to hire an additional 50 Global War on Terror outreach coordinators, strike the three-year authorization provision for these outreach workers, clarify that Vet Centers can provide bereavement counseling to family members including parents, and provide more funding for the Vet Center program. In February 2004, VA authorized the Vet Center program to hire 50 OEF/OIF veterans to conduct outreach to their fellow Global War on Terrorism veterans. There are still many OEF/OIF veterans in need of readjustment services, which requires more workers. This legislation would authorize the hiring of 50 additional outreach coordinators to reach this underserved population of veterans. In addition, this legislation would also repeal the three- year authorization provision placed on these positions. The number of brave servicemembers who die while defending freedom continues to rise, leaving many surviving family members in need for help. Under current law, VA has the authority to provide bereavement counseling to the immediate family. However, it is necessary to clarify that parents of a deceased servicemember qualify for this bereavement counseling and that such care could be provided at Vet Centers. This legislation would make the clarifications. A recent article in the Washington Post detailed a mother's experience after her son was killed in Iraq and how she finally felt relief at an unexpected place, a Vet Center. The article also provided information concerning the Vet Center bereavement program and discussed the need for clarification of the Vet Center bereavement care program. This article paints a clear picture of the distress that surviving family members endure as a result of the death of a beloved soldier. I ask unanimous consent that the text of The Washington Post article be printed in the Record. As the War on Terrorism persists, the number of veterans seeking readjustment counseling and related mental health services through Vet Centers will continue to grow. Experts predict that as many as 30 percent of those returning servicemembers may need psychiatric care. For these returning servicemembers who have suffered psychological wounds, the stigma surrounding these types of wounds creates a barrier that often times prevents them from seeking the care they need. Vet Centers, which have licensed mental health professionals, provide a means to overcome this barrier because of the center's location in the community and because veteran staff members can relate to the experiences of the veterans seeking services. In 2004, Vet Centers cared for 9,597 OEF/OIF veterans and 2005 projections are that Vet Centers will see 12,656 OEF/OIF veterans. Despite increases in the number of veterans coming for care to Vet Centers, the budget for the program has remained stagnant. This legislation would authorize funding for the program from $93 million to $180 million. We must make the readjustment period for the returning service members and the surviving family members of deceased servicemembers as smooth as possible.