Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005. My legislation amends the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all companion animals such as dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally. Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act, AWA, authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to set and enforce standards protecting animals used in biomedical research, bred for commercial sale, exhibited to the public, or commercially transported from inhumane treatment. Despite the well-meaning intentions of the AWA and the enforcement efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, the act fails to provide reliable protection against the actions of some unethical animal dealers. Under the AWA, class B animal dealers are defined as individuals whose business includes the purchase, sale, or transport of animals in commerce, including dogs and cats intended for use at research facilities. To the dismay of animal welfare advocates and pet owners, some class B, or ``random source,'' dealers have resorted to theft and deception to collect animals for resale. In many instances these animals were found living under inhumane conditions. As recently as August of 2003, USDA agents executed a warrant to investigate a class B dealer from Arkansas suspected of violations of the AWA for the second time in several years. Many claims have been levied against this dealer, and approximately 125 dogs were seized by federal agents during this week-long search. The complaint investigated by the USDA against the dealer alleged that the respondents' veterinarian provided for them falsified official health certificates for cats and dogs, and also provided them with blank, undated, and signed health certificates. It also alleged that the dealer failed to provide the barest standards of care, husbandry, and housing for the animals on the premises. In addition, it alleged that its proprietors were aware that some of the companion animals brought to the facility were stolen, and that the business maintained a list of over 50 ``bunchers,'' individuals who obtain animals and sell them to ``random source'' animal dealers. Bunchers have a variety of methods of obtaining companion animals, including responding to newspaper ads offering free animals, trespassing on private property to abduct the animals from yards, and house burglaries. I am pleased to report that the civil trial against this class B dealer was settled on January 28, 2005. Under the agreement, the dealer and others associated with the business had their licenses permanently revoked. In addition, fines up to $262,700 were imposed by the USDA, which included a personal civil penalty of $12,700. The dealer also is prohibited from engaging in any activities under which the licenses were revoked for 5 years. While this case resulted in a landmark settlement, I would like to remind my colleagues that if it were not for an outside organization that filed a complaint with the USDA, this class B dealer could still be in operation today. We, in Congress, need to ensure that dealers such as the one in Arkansas are unable to acquire, house, and sell pets. The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005 strengthens the AWA by prohibiting the use of class B dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories. Contrary to what others might say, my legislation will not be a burden on research facilities because only 2 percent of the approximately 2,051 class B dealers in the United States currently sell cats and dogs to research facilities. I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used in research. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight against cancer, Alzheimer's, tuberculosis, AIDS, and a host of other life-threatening diseases. Animal research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. However, I am concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities and the poor treatment of these animals by some class B dealers. My legislation preserves the integrity of animal research by encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate sources that comply with the AWA. Legitimate sources for animals include USDA-licensed class A dealers, breeders, and research facilities, municipal pounds and shelters, and legitimate pet owners who want to donate their animals to research. These sources are capable of meeting the demand for research animals. The National Institutes of Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, have already adopted policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from class B dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005 also reduces the USDA's regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its resources more efficiently and effectively. Each year, thousands of dollars are spent on regulating dealers. To discourage any future violations of the AWA, my bill increases the penalties to a minimum of $1,000 per violation. I reiterate that this bill in no way impairs or impedes research but will end the fraudulent practices of some class B dealers, as well as the unnecessary suffering of these animals in their care. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005. My legislation amends the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all companion animals such as dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally. Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act, AWA, authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to set and enforce standards protecting animals used in biomedical research, bred for commercial sale, exhibited to the public, or commercially transported from inhumane treatment. Despite the well-meaning intentions of the AWA and the enforcement efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, the act fails to provide reliable protection against the actions of some unethical animal dealers. Under the AWA, class B animal dealers are defined as individuals whose business includes the purchase, sale, or transport of animals in commerce, including dogs and cats intended for use at research facilities. To the dismay of animal welfare advocates and pet owners, some class B, or ``random source,'' dealers have resorted to theft and deception to collect animals for resale. In many instances these animals were found living under inhumane conditions. As recently as August of 2003, USDA agents executed a warrant to investigate a class B dealer from Arkansas suspected of violations of the AWA for the second time in several years. Many claims have been levied against this dealer, and approximately 125 dogs were seized by federal agents during this week-long search. The complaint investigated by the USDA against the dealer alleged that the respondents' veterinarian provided for them falsified official health certificates for cats and dogs, and also provided them with blank, undated, and signed health certificates. It also alleged that the dealer failed to provide the barest standards of care, husbandry, and housing for the animals on the premises. In addition, it alleged that its proprietors were aware that some of the companion animals brought to the facility were stolen, and that the business maintained a list of over 50 ``bunchers,'' individuals who obtain animals and sell them to ``random source'' animal dealers. Bunchers have a variety of methods of obtaining companion animals, including responding to newspaper ads offering free animals, trespassing on private property to abduct the animals from yards, and house burglaries. I am pleased to report that the civil trial against this class B dealer was settled on January 28, 2005. Under the agreement, the dealer and others associated with the business had their licenses permanently revoked. In addition, fines up to $262,700 were imposed by the USDA, which included a personal civil penalty of $12,700. The dealer also is prohibited from engaging in any activities under which the licenses were revoked for 5 years. While this case resulted in a landmark settlement, I would like to remind my colleagues that if it were not for an outside organization that filed a complaint with the USDA, this class B dealer could still be in operation today. We, in Congress, need to ensure that dealers such as the one in Arkansas are unable to acquire, house, and sell pets. The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005 strengthens the AWA by prohibiting the use of class B dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories. Contrary to what others might say, my legislation will not be a burden on research facilities because only 2 percent of the approximately 2,051 class B dealers in the United States currently sell cats and dogs to research facilities. I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used in research. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight against cancer, Alzheimer's, tuberculosis, AIDS, and a host of other life-threatening diseases. Animal research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. However, I am concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities and the poor treatment of these animals by some class B dealers. My legislation preserves the integrity of animal research by encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate sources that comply with the AWA. Legitimate sources for animals include USDA-licensed class A dealers, breeders, and research facilities, municipal pounds and shelters, and legitimate pet owners who want to donate their animals to research. These sources are capable of meeting the demand for research animals. The National Institutes of Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, have already adopted policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from class B dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005 also reduces the USDA's regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its resources more efficiently and effectively. Each year, thousands of dollars are spent on regulating dealers. To discourage any future violations of the AWA, my bill increases the penalties to a minimum of $1,000 per violation. I reiterate that this bill in no way impairs or impedes research but will end the fraudulent practices of some class B dealers, as well as the unnecessary suffering of these animals in their care. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act. I thank Senators Durbin, Leahy, Sarbanes, and Schumer for working with me on this legislation and for cosponsoring this bill. I am deeply concerned about the enormous debt burdens that Americans are currently carrying. I share the concern on debts we expect from the Social Security program. Revolving Debt, mostly comprised of credit card debt, has increased from $54 billion in January 1980 to more than $780 billion in November 2004. A U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Consumer Federation of America analysis of Federal Reserve data indicates that the average household with debt carries approximately $10,000 to $12,000 in total revolving debt and has nine credit cards. During all of 1980, only 287,570 consumers filed for bankruptcy. As consumer debt burdens have ballooned, the number of bankruptcies have increased significantly. From January through September of 2004, approximately 1.2 million consumers filed for bankruptcy, keeping pace with last year's record level. It is imperative that we make consumers more aware of the long-term effects of their financial decisions, particularly in managing their credit card debt, so that they can avoid financial pitfalls that may lead to bankruptcy. While it is relatively easy to obtain credit, not enough is done to ensure that credit is properly managed. Currently, credit card statements fail to include all of the information necessary to allow individuals to make fully informed financial decisions. Additional disclosure is needed to ensure that individuals completely understand the implications of their credit card use and costs of only making the minimum payments required by credit card companies. Our legislation will provide a wake up call for consumers. It will make it very clear what costs consumers will incur if they make only the minimum payments on their credit cards. The personalized information they will receive for each of their accounts will help them to make informed choices about the payments that they choose to make towards reducing their balance. This bill requires a minimum payment warning notification on monthly statements stating that making the minimum payment will increase the amount of interest that will be paid and extend the amount of time it will take to repay the outstanding balance. The bill also requires informing consumers of how many years and months it will take to repay their entire balance if they make only the minimum payments. In addition, the total cost in interest and principal, if the consumer pays only the minimum payment, would have to be disclosed. These provisions will make individuals much more aware of the true costs of their credit card debts. The bill also requires that credit card companies provide useful information so that people can develop strategies to free themselves of credit card debt. Consumers would have to be provided with the amount they need to pay to eliminate their outstanding balance within 36 months. Finally, the legislation would require that creditors establish a toll-free number so that consumers can access trustworthy credit counselors. In order to ensure that consumers are referred from the toll-free number to only trustworthy organizations, the agencies for referral would have to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board as having met comprehensive quality standards. These standards are necessary because certain credit counseling agencies have abused their nonprofit, tax-exempt status and have taken advantage of people seeking assistance in managing their debts. Many people believe, sometimes mistakenly, that they can place blind trust in nonprofit organizations and that their fees will be lower than those of other credit counseling organizations. Too many individuals may not realize that the credit counseling industry does not deserve the trust that consumers often place in it. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act has been endorsed by the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and Consumer Action. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will empower consumers by providing them with detailed personalized information to assist them in making informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. This bill makes clear the adverse consequences of uninformed choices such as making only minimum payments and provides opportunities to locate assistance to eliminate credit card debts. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support and fact sheet from organizations in support of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act. I thank Senators Durbin, Leahy, Sarbanes, and Schumer for working with me on this legislation and for cosponsoring this bill. I am deeply concerned about the enormous debt burdens that Americans are currently carrying. I share the concern on debts we expect from the Social Security program. Revolving Debt, mostly comprised of credit card debt, has increased from $54 billion in January 1980 to more than $780 billion in November 2004. A U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Consumer Federation of America analysis of Federal Reserve data indicates that the average household with debt carries approximately $10,000 to $12,000 in total revolving debt and has nine credit cards. During all of 1980, only 287,570 consumers filed for bankruptcy. As consumer debt burdens have ballooned, the number of bankruptcies have increased significantly. From January through September of 2004, approximately 1.2 million consumers filed for bankruptcy, keeping pace with last year's record level. It is imperative that we make consumers more aware of the long-term effects of their financial decisions, particularly in managing their credit card debt, so that they can avoid financial pitfalls that may lead to bankruptcy. While it is relatively easy to obtain credit, not enough is done to ensure that credit is properly managed. Currently, credit card statements fail to include all of the information necessary to allow individuals to make fully informed financial decisions. Additional disclosure is needed to ensure that individuals completely understand the implications of their credit card use and costs of only making the minimum payments required by credit card companies. Our legislation will provide a wake up call for consumers. It will make it very clear what costs consumers will incur if they make only the minimum payments on their credit cards. The personalized information they will receive for each of their accounts will help them to make informed choices about the payments that they choose to make towards reducing their balance. This bill requires a minimum payment warning notification on monthly statements stating that making the minimum payment will increase the amount of interest that will be paid and extend the amount of time it will take to repay the outstanding balance. The bill also requires informing consumers of how many years and months it will take to repay their entire balance if they make only the minimum payments. In addition, the total cost in interest and principal, if the consumer pays only the minimum payment, would have to be disclosed. These provisions will make individuals much more aware of the true costs of their credit card debts. The bill also requires that credit card companies provide useful information so that people can develop strategies to free themselves of credit card debt. Consumers would have to be provided with the amount they need to pay to eliminate their outstanding balance within 36 months. Finally, the legislation would require that creditors establish a toll-free number so that consumers can access trustworthy credit counselors. In order to ensure that consumers are referred from the toll-free number to only trustworthy organizations, the agencies for referral would have to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board as having met comprehensive quality standards. These standards are necessary because certain credit counseling agencies have abused their nonprofit, tax-exempt status and have taken advantage of people seeking assistance in managing their debts. Many people believe, sometimes mistakenly, that they can place blind trust in nonprofit organizations and that their fees will be lower than those of other credit counseling organizations. Too many individuals may not realize that the credit counseling industry does not deserve the trust that consumers often place in it. The Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act has been endorsed by the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and Consumer Action. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will empower consumers by providing them with detailed personalized information to assist them in making informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. This bill makes clear the adverse consequences of uninformed choices such as making only minimum payments and provides opportunities to locate assistance to eliminate credit card debts. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support and fact sheet from organizations in support of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. Since the inception of DHS in 2003, Secretary Tom Ridge has led the department with strength and grace. His tenure sets a high standard for future secretaries to meet. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Secretary Ridge for his hard work and dedication to his country. As a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I was able to discuss with Judge Chertoff his positions on issues such as the DHS personnel regulations, civil liberties, and bioterrorism. Judge Chertoff expressed his commitment to these issues and promised he would investigate and report back to the committee on a number of DHS policies of concern to me. There were five main points that I raised with Judge Chertoff. First, I asked for his assurance that he will defend the Constitution to safeguard our civil liberties. The price of security should never erode our constitutional freedoms, which are essential to the preservation of this democracy. One specific activity I have concerns about is data mining, which could involve the collection of personal data that could violate an individual's privacy rights. Judge Chertoff affirmed his commitment to liberty and privacy, and I will continue to monitor DHS closely to ensure that he fulfills that commitment. We also discussed the just-released personnel regulations covering the 180,000 men and women who staff DHS. To make these new regulations work, there must be significant and meaningful outreach to this dedicated workforce, their unions, and their managers. A well-managed organization values employee input and understands the important role employees play in protecting against mismanagement. To undermine opportunities for employees to voice concerns or even have notice of departmental changes unnecessarily harms workers. My third concern is the protection of whistleblower rights in the department. Whistleblowers alert Congress and the public to threats to health, waste of taxpayer money, and other information vital to running an effective and efficient government. I asked Judge Chertoff to pledge to protect whistleblowers and foster an open work environment that promotes the disclosure of Government mismanagement and Government illegality. In response, he promised ``to support whistleblowers and to support candid assessments by employees when there are problems in the department.'' I am pleased he acknowledges the importance of whistleblowers to a Federal agency and has vowed to protect their rights. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, and the author of whistleblower protection legislation, I will be monitoring the department closely to ensure that Judge Chertoff follows through on this promise. The fourth issue on which I asked for Judge Chertoff's commitment was bioterrorism and, more specifically, agriculture security. Since 2001, I have urged the administration to develop a coordinated response to bioterrorism and agroterrorism through legislation, which is critical to the health and safety of Americans. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to participate in a gaming exercise called ``Scarlet Shield'' at the National Defense University that postulated a bioterrorist attack. This exercise brought home to me the need to do much more in ensuring an effective, coordinated response. I will introduce shortly the Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act of 2005, which will improve State, local, and tribal governments' ability to respond to an attack on the food supply and facilitate DHS's coordination with other Federal agencies with food and agriculture responsibilities. Judge Chertoff agrees with me that bioterrorism is one of the greatest threats our Nation currently faces, and as such I hope I can count on his support for my bill. The final issue I discussed with the Judge is the security challenges for my home State of Hawaii, 2,500 miles from the West Coast. Being the only island State, Hawaii has been blessed with diverse and breathtaking geography and a unique culture. However, its geographic location poses challenges to securing the State from asymmetric threats. For example, when disaster strikes, Hawaii cannot call on neighboring States for assistance due to distance and time difference. Our eight inhabited islands must be self sufficient. For that reason, I have established positive working relationships with Secretary Ridge and senior policymakers from DHS as well as from PACOM and NORTHCOM to ensure that when national homeland security policies are being formulated, the needs of Hawaii are kept under consideration. Judge Chertoff promised to be mindful of these unique needs and to continue the positive relationship Hawaii has enjoyed with Secretary Ridge. I also note I am pleased Judge Chertoff has stressed the importance of close cooperation with Congress, particularly the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and has promised to provide the information we need to fulfill our oversight responsibilities. With Judge Chertoff's assurances that he will protect civil liberties and whistleblower rights, work openly with Congress, and prioritize the other issues I have detailed today, I will support his nomination to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. I believe he has the professionalism and the commitment to serve the department well, and I hope we, in the Congress, will enjoy a long and productive relationship with him. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I congratulate a special group of teachers in the Hawaii Public School System, those who have successfully earned the designation National Board Certified Teacher. During 2004, a new cadre of 24 consummate professionals demonstrated that their teaching practice is consistent with the rigorous requirements for the profession as set by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. By demonstrating that their practice meets or exceeds the most rigorous set of standards for a K-12 teacher in the United States, they have successfully achieved National Board Certification. Their achievement brings the number of teachers working in the schools in Hawaii who have attained this prestigious credential to 80. These dedicated teachers are distributed throughout the educational system of Hawaii. Some teach at the elementary level, some in middle schools, while others teach in high school classrooms. Some teach on Oahu, some are on the Big Island, some work on Maui and others on Kauai. Some teach language arts, some teach math, while others teach other disciplines. Some teach special needs students, a few are generalists, others are specialists, and one is a librarian. But all of them have one thing in common, their dedication to helping the schoolchildren of Hawaii achieve all they can. I am proud to enter their names into the Record of this august body. During the 2004 year the following teachers received the credential: Cynthia Acierto, Kalihi-Kai Elementary School, Oahu; Deborah Anderson, Honokaa High and Intermediate School, Hawaii; Laura Brown, Pearl Ridge Elementary School, Oahu; Lorraine Ching, Lunalilo Elementary School, Oahu; Laurianne Chun, Hawaii Center for the Deaf and Blind, Oahu; Sharon Chun, Maemae Elementary School, Oahu; Scott Fieux, Honokaa Elementary School, Hawaii; Jilda Hoffman, Kailua Intermediate School, Oahu; Michael Ida, Kalani High School, Oahu; Tracey Idica, Aiea High School, Oahu; Shari Kaneshiro, Hokulani Elementary School, Oahu; Patti Laba, Dole Middle School, Oahu; Angela Miyashiro, Hilo High School, Hawaii; Diane Murakami, Kaahumanu Elementary School, Oahu; Sunny Seal- Laplante, Kalanianaole Elementary and Intermediate School, Hawaii; Linda Seals, Wahiawa Middle School, Oahu; Ralph Soderberg, Kealakehe Intermediate School, Hawaii; Lynne Sueoka, Moanalua High School, Oahu; Kimberly Tadaki, Holomua Elementary School, Oahu; Terri Takabayashi, Maemae Elementary School, Oahu; Saundra Takara, Aliamanu Elementary School, Oahu; Joanne Thompson, Kilauea Elementary School, Kauai; Gail Van De Verg, Heeia Elementary School, Oahu; Laurie Waite Flores, Hauula Elementary School, Oahu. During the 2003 year the following teachers received the credential: Jerri Anderson, Kealakehe High School, Hawaii; Kristilyn Atalig, Holomua Elementary School, Oahu; Cynthia Chun, Kapolei High School, Oahu; Phyllis Clemmer, Keaau Middle School, Hawaii; Colleen Collins, Pahoa Elementary School, Hawaii; Marian Crocco, Alvah Scott Elementary School, Oahu; Denise Darval-Chang, Kailua High School, Oahu; June Davids, Keaau Middle School, Hawaii; Karen DeBrum, Lanai High and Elementary School, Maui; Elizabeth Delyon, Makawao Elementary School, Maui; Laura Fukumoto, Aliamanu Elementary School, Oahu; Jonathan Gillentine, Benjamin Parker Elementary School, Oahu; Nancy Graf, Kapaa Middle School, Kauai; Maria Hawkins, Kaimiloa Elementary School, Oahu; Phyllis Ida, Windward District Office, Oahu; Michael Kline, Kalaheo Elementary School, Kauai; Roberta Kokx, Kihei Elementary School, Maui; Hennan Leong, Radford High School, Oahu; Sandra Linskey, Castle High School, Oahu; Judy Locke, Kihei Elementary School, Maui; Michael Oliver, Baldwin High School, Maui; Liane Otani-Nakagawa, Kihei Elementary School, Maui; Cristina Rathyenn, Moanalua High School, Oahu; Carol Seielstad, Hanalei Elementary School, Kauai; Cherie Synnott, Pearl Harbor Elementary School, Oahu; Maria Vasquez, Waialua Elementary School, Oahu; Anna Fern White, Kohala High School, Hawaii; Kara Yasui, Holomua Elementary School, Oahu. During the 2002 year the following teachers received the credential: Rena Arakawa, Kaahumanu Elementary School, Oahu; Carla Brooks, Roosevelt High School, Oahu; Dewey Gottlieb II, Pearl City High School, Oahu; Jamie Hamada, Barbers Point Elementary School, Oahu; Leslie Hamasaki, Kalani High School, Oahu; Loraine Hotoke, Liholiho Elementary School, Oahu; Sandra Kaneshiro, Central Middle School, Oahu; Carolyn Kirio, Kaolei High School, Oahu; Kalen Kitagawa, Waialua Elementary School, Oahu; Sandra Maruyaba, Leilehua High School, Oahu; Patricia Miyahira, Leeward District Office, Oahu; Jami Muranika, Kaimuki High School, Oahu; Karen Muronaga, Lincoln Elementary School, Oahu; Kathleenl Nagaji, Pearl Ridge Elementary School, Oahu; Pascale Pinner, Hilo Intermediate School, Hawaii; Anne Torige, Kaimuki High School, Oahu; Julie Tomomitsu, Maemae Elementary School, Oahu; Jenny Wells, Windward District Office, Oahu; Julia Williams, Hawaii District Office, Hawaii. During the 2001 year the following teachers received the credential: Lisa Houston, Iliaha Elementary, Oahu; Teresa Tugadi, Pohakea Elementary School, Oahu; Lisa Yanase, Waialua Elementary School, Oahu. During the 2000 year the following teachers received the credential: Jill Hirota, Waialua Elementary School, Oahu; Bess Anne Jennings, Hawaii District Office, Hawaii; Charlene Miyashiro, Waiakeawaena Elementary School, Hawaii. During the 1999 year the following teachers received the credential: Derek Minafami, Kailua High School, Oahu; Tammie Reynolds, Mililani High School, Oahu. During the 1998 year the following teacher received the credential: Linda Sciaroi, Chiefess Kamakahelie Middle School, Kauai. I offer my heartfelt congratulations to them all. They have worked very hard to earn the designation, National Board Certified Teacher. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, the organization that confers this designation, is a teacher-led association, which grants national certification to a teacher only after a long and very comprehensive process. It requires the preparation and submission of a portfolio featuring videotaped classroom presented lessons, including a written analysis of the lesson, lesson plans and student work samples. The teacher must also submit written discussion, analysis, and reflective commentaries concerning other curriculum used in the classroom. A third component of the portfolio includes records of activities benefiting the larger school community, including families and activities that help to improve the teaching profession. The candidate has 3 years to complete these activities, although most complete this portfolio during one school year. Also required for this certification is successful completion of a rigorous set of examinations assessing the content knowledge of the teacher. This is a very arduous process. But in Hawaii help is available. The Hawaii Teacher Standards Board, along with the Hawaii State Teachers Association, provides support groups for teachers undertaking this process. These sessions are held on the islands of Oahu, Maui, Kauai and the Big Island, and they provide a support network for the candidates as they go through the process. Most often this will be a facilitator, a teacher who has already earned the designation of National Board Certified Teacher. It is also a place to meet with other teachers undergoing the process, support each other, and sometimes to commiserate. This support goes a long way in making this very difficult process doable. National Board Certification does not replace the teacher licensure requirements as maintained by the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board, but identifies the recipient as an exemplary practitioner, someone at the top of his or her profession. It signifies the teacher as someone who is a recognized leader in the art and science of teaching. And research has shown time and again that students in classrooms with National Board Certified Teachers show larger gains on assessments than do students in classrooms not staffed with nationally certified teachers. It is the only nationally based teacher evaluation and certification program to successfully undergo a rigorous scientifically based set of evaluations, and to show improved results for the students. I am very proud to honor these newly recognized teachers. At a time when the country is working to improve education, when the No Child Left Behind Act is demanding a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, where schools, district and states are under the gun to make adequate yearly progress, where increasingly students must demonstrate achievement as measured by a high stakes test to graduate from high school, where districts and States are working to find, hire and retain professionals in this very difficult field, and where research has shown the ability of the classroom teacher is the most important factor affecting the learning of the students, I am proud to say to these newly certified teachers ``Well Done,'' and ``Mahalo Nui Loa.''

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 324 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act. Earned income tax credit, EITC, benefits intended for working families are significantly reduced by the use of refund anticipation loans, RALs, which typically carry triple digit interest rates. According to the Brookings Institution, an estimated $1.9 billion intended to assist low-income families was received by commercial tax preparers and affiliated national banks to pay for tax assistance, electronic filing of returns, and high-cost refund loans in 2002. Fifty-seven percent of consumers who received RALs in 2003 earned the EITC. The Children's Defense Fund recently conducted a review of EITC refunds in eight states and the District of Columbia. In Texas, it is estimated that EITC families lost an estimated $251 million in tax preparation fees and high interest loans. EITC families had an estimated $82.6 million diverted to tax preparers in Ohio. The interest rates and fees charged on RALs are not justified because of the short length of time that these loans are outstanding and the minimal risk they present. These loans carry little risk because of the Debt Indicator program. The Debt Indicator, DI, is a service provided by the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, that informs the lender whether or not an applicant owes Federal or state taxes, child support, student loans, or other Government obligations, which assists the tax preparer in ascertaining the applicant's ability to obtain their full refund so that the RAL is repaid. The Department of the Treasury should not be facilitating these predatory loans that allow tax preparers to reap outrageous profits by exploiting working families. Unfortunately too many working families are susceptible to predatory lending because they are left out of the financial mainstream. Between 25 and 56 million adults are unbanked, or not using mainstream, insured financial institutions. The unbanked rely on alternative financial service providers to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, send remittances, utilize payday loans, and obtain credit. Many of the unbanked are low- and moderate-income families that can ill afford to have their earnings unnecessarily diminished by their reliance on these high-cost and often predatory financial services. In addition, the unbanked are unable to save securely to prepare for the loss of a job, a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or education expenses. My bill will protect consumers against predatory loans, reduce the involvement of the Department of the Treasury in facilitating the exploitation of taxpayers, and expand access to opportunities for saving and lending at mainstream financial services. My bill prohibits refund anticipation loans that utilize EITC benefits. Other Federal benefits, such as Social Security, have similar restrictions to ensure that the beneficiaries receive the intended benefit. My bill also limits several of the objectionable practices of RAL providers. It will prohibit lenders from using tax refunds to collect outstanding obligations for previous RALs. In addition, mandatory arbitration clauses for RALs that utilize Federal tax refunds would be prohibited to ensure that consumers have the ability to take future legal action if necessary. I am deeply troubled that the Department of the Treasury plays such a prominent role in the facilitation and subsequent promotion of refund anticipation loans. In 1995, the use of the DI was suspended because of massive fraud in e-filed returns with RALs. After the program was discontinued, RAL participation declined. The use of the DI was reinstated in 1999, according to H&R Block, to ``assist with screening for electronic filing fraud and is also expected to substantially reduce refund anticipation loan pricing.'' Although RAL prices were expected to go down as a result of the reinstatement of the DI, this has not occurred. Use of the Debt Indicator should once again be stopped. The DI is helping tax preparers make excessive profits from low- and moderate-income taxpayers who utilize RALs. The IRS should not be aiding efforts that take the earned benefit away from low-income families and allow unscrupulous preparers to take advantage of low- income taxpayers. My bill terminates the DI program. In addition, this bill removes the incentive to meet congressionally mandated electronic filing goals by facilitating the exploitation of taxpayers. My bill would exclude any electronically filed tax returns resulting in tax refunds distributed by refund anticipation loans from being counted towards the goal established by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which is to have at least 80 percent of all returns filed electronically by 2007. Mr. President, my bill also expands access to mainstream financial services. Electronic Transfer Accounts, ETA, are low-cost accounts at banks and credit unions intended for recipients of certain Federal benefit payments. Currently, ETAs are provided for recipients of other Federal benefits such as Social Security payments. My bill expands the eligibility for ETAs to include EITC benefits. These accounts will allow taxpayers to receive direct deposit refunds into an account without the need for a refund anticipation loan. Furthermore, my bill would mandate that low- and moderate-income taxpayers be provided opportunities to open low-cost accounts at federally insured banks or credit unions via appropriate tax forms. Providing taxpayers with the option of opening a bank or credit union account through the use of tax forms provides an alternative to RALs and immediate access to financial opportunities found at banks and credit unions. I thank my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Sarbanes, Dayton, and Durbin for cosponsoring this legislation. I also thank Representative Jan Schakowsky for introducing the companion legislation in the other body. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act, support letters and an accompanying fact sheet from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform, the Children's Defense Fund, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the National Consumer Law Center, the Center for Responsible Lending, and the text of the national summary of the refund anticipation studies done by the Children's Defense Fund be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that will restrict predatory RALs and expand access to mainstream financial services.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act. Earned income tax credit, EITC, benefits intended for working families are significantly reduced by the use of refund anticipation loans, RALs, which typically carry triple digit interest rates. According to the Brookings Institution, an estimated $1.9 billion intended to assist low-income families was received by commercial tax preparers and affiliated national banks to pay for tax assistance, electronic filing of returns, and high-cost refund loans in 2002. Fifty-seven percent of consumers who received RALs in 2003 earned the EITC. The Children's Defense Fund recently conducted a review of EITC refunds in eight states and the District of Columbia. In Texas, it is estimated that EITC families lost an estimated $251 million in tax preparation fees and high interest loans. EITC families had an estimated $82.6 million diverted to tax preparers in Ohio. The interest rates and fees charged on RALs are not justified because of the short length of time that these loans are outstanding and the minimal risk they present. These loans carry little risk because of the Debt Indicator program. The Debt Indicator, DI, is a service provided by the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, that informs the lender whether or not an applicant owes Federal or state taxes, child support, student loans, or other Government obligations, which assists the tax preparer in ascertaining the applicant's ability to obtain their full refund so that the RAL is repaid. The Department of the Treasury should not be facilitating these predatory loans that allow tax preparers to reap outrageous profits by exploiting working families. Unfortunately too many working families are susceptible to predatory lending because they are left out of the financial mainstream. Between 25 and 56 million adults are unbanked, or not using mainstream, insured financial institutions. The unbanked rely on alternative financial service providers to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, send remittances, utilize payday loans, and obtain credit. Many of the unbanked are low- and moderate-income families that can ill afford to have their earnings unnecessarily diminished by their reliance on these high-cost and often predatory financial services. In addition, the unbanked are unable to save securely to prepare for the loss of a job, a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or education expenses. My bill will protect consumers against predatory loans, reduce the involvement of the Department of the Treasury in facilitating the exploitation of taxpayers, and expand access to opportunities for saving and lending at mainstream financial services. My bill prohibits refund anticipation loans that utilize EITC benefits. Other Federal benefits, such as Social Security, have similar restrictions to ensure that the beneficiaries receive the intended benefit. My bill also limits several of the objectionable practices of RAL providers. It will prohibit lenders from using tax refunds to collect outstanding obligations for previous RALs. In addition, mandatory arbitration clauses for RALs that utilize Federal tax refunds would be prohibited to ensure that consumers have the ability to take future legal action if necessary. I am deeply troubled that the Department of the Treasury plays such a prominent role in the facilitation and subsequent promotion of refund anticipation loans. In 1995, the use of the DI was suspended because of massive fraud in e-filed returns with RALs. After the program was discontinued, RAL participation declined. The use of the DI was reinstated in 1999, according to H&R Block, to ``assist with screening for electronic filing fraud and is also expected to substantially reduce refund anticipation loan pricing.'' Although RAL prices were expected to go down as a result of the reinstatement of the DI, this has not occurred. Use of the Debt Indicator should once again be stopped. The DI is helping tax preparers make excessive profits from low- and moderate-income taxpayers who utilize RALs. The IRS should not be aiding efforts that take the earned benefit away from low-income families and allow unscrupulous preparers to take advantage of low- income taxpayers. My bill terminates the DI program. In addition, this bill removes the incentive to meet congressionally mandated electronic filing goals by facilitating the exploitation of taxpayers. My bill would exclude any electronically filed tax returns resulting in tax refunds distributed by refund anticipation loans from being counted towards the goal established by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which is to have at least 80 percent of all returns filed electronically by 2007. Mr. President, my bill also expands access to mainstream financial services. Electronic Transfer Accounts, ETA, are low-cost accounts at banks and credit unions intended for recipients of certain Federal benefit payments. Currently, ETAs are provided for recipients of other Federal benefits such as Social Security payments. My bill expands the eligibility for ETAs to include EITC benefits. These accounts will allow taxpayers to receive direct deposit refunds into an account without the need for a refund anticipation loan. Furthermore, my bill would mandate that low- and moderate-income taxpayers be provided opportunities to open low-cost accounts at federally insured banks or credit unions via appropriate tax forms. Providing taxpayers with the option of opening a bank or credit union account through the use of tax forms provides an alternative to RALs and immediate access to financial opportunities found at banks and credit unions. I thank my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Sarbanes, Dayton, and Durbin for cosponsoring this legislation. I also thank Representative Jan Schakowsky for introducing the companion legislation in the other body. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act, support letters and an accompanying fact sheet from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform, the Children's Defense Fund, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the National Consumer Law Center, the Center for Responsible Lending, and the text of the national summary of the refund anticipation studies done by the Children's Defense Fund be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that will restrict predatory RALs and expand access to mainstream financial services.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Hawaii to introduce legislation to authorize three important water reclamation projects in the State of Hawaii. This legislation, the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005, is identical to legislation considered in the 108th Congress that passed the Senate by unanimous consent on May 19, 2004. Although one usually does not readily associate the State of Hawaii as a place with drought problems, Hawaii has been experiencing drought conditions since 1998. The Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005 builds upon the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000 P.L. 106-566 that authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to survey irrigation and water delivery systems in Hawaii and identify new opportunities for reclamation and reuse of water and wastewater for agriculture and non-agricultural purposes. While the Act resulted in the development of the initial Hawaii Drought Plan in 2000, which was updated this past year to incorporate comments and recommendations made by the Bureau of Reclamation, more needs to be done. Although Hawaii is just beginning to recover from a multi-year drought, the National Weather Service has indicated that due to a mild El Nino effect in the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii may again experience another period of drought. It is imperative for Hawaii to improve its ways to reduce consumption of drinking water. The legislation that I am introducing today, the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005, will help the State of Hawaii to be proactive by authorizing projects that will address the demand on our freshwater supply, especially on the islands of Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii. The legislation authorizes three projects. The first project, in Honolulu, will provide reliable potable water through resource diversification to meet existing and future demands, particularly in the Ewa area of Oahu where water demands are outpacing the availability of drinking water. The second project, in North Kona, will address the issue of effluent being discharged into a temporary disposal sump from the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project would utilize subsurface wetlands to naturally clean the effluent and convey the recycled water to a number of users. The third project, in Lahaina, will reduce the use of potable water by extending the County of Maui's main recycled water pipeline. The Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005 will begin the next phase of ensuring that the State of Hawaii will continue to have a supply of fresh drinking water. It is vitally important for the State to begin working on these water reclamation projects and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which is important to communities in Hawaii.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act to protect and preserve the Nation's important fossil record for the benefit of our citizens. I am pleased to have Senators Baucus, Feinstein, Durbin, Roberts, and Inouye join me as original cosponsors on this significant legislation. This bill was reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and approved by unanimous consent during the 108th Congress. A similar bill was introduced in the other body by Representative James R. McGovern, with 15 cosponsors, but was not reported by the Resources Committee. I hope we can pass this again quickly in the Senate and move the bill in the House of Representatives. You may remember that in 1999, Congress requested that the Secretary of the Interior review and report on the Federal policy concerning paleontological resources on Federal lands. In its request, Congress noted that no unified Federal policy existed regarding the--treatment of fossils by Federal land management agencies, and emphasized Congress's concerns that a lack of appropriate standards would lead to the deterioration or loss of fossils, which are valuable scientific resources. Unfortunately, that situation remains the case today. In the past year alone, there have been compelling finds of fossils that are helping us unlock the mysteries of the past from the earth, whether violent tectonic cataclysms or depletion of oxygen in the oceans and consequent drastic changes in species. The National Parks Conservation Association NPCA, a bipartisan non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing National Parks, recently called for ``stronger laws, better enforcement, and better education programs . . . to more fully protect these valuable [fossil] relics.'' In its Fall 2004 issue of National Parks, the article described the discovery at Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota, in July 2003, of fossilized remains of a 5-foot tall hornless rhinoceros, a collie-sized horse, and a foot-tall, deer-like mammal. National Parks are the home of many extraordinary fossil discoveries already, such as the graveyards of 20-million-year old camels and rhinos at Agate Fossil Beds National Monument in Nebraska, the only pygmy island-dwelling mammoth at Channel Islands National Park in California; and tropical dinosaurs in what are now the arid lands of the Painted Desert of southern Arizona. Besides the National Park Service, other Federal land management agencies have a number of regulations and directives on paleontological resources, but they are not consistent and there is no clear statutory language providing direction in protecting and curating fossils. I would like to commend to my colleagues two reports recently published by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, which we know as an impartial, non-partisan legislative research service that provides analysis for Congress. The CRS American Law Division published two reports entitled ``Federal Management and Protection of Fossil Resources on Federal Lands'' and, ``Paleontological Resources Protection Act: Proposal for the Management and Protection of Fossil Resources Located on Federal Lands.'' These two reports analyze the status and activities of Federal agencies with paleontological responsibilities, the statutory authorities for fossils, the case law supporting them, and the bills recently introduced on fossils such as S. 546 in the 108th Congress. The reports point out that several Federal agencies have management authority for the protection of fossil resources on the lands under their jurisdiction--the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service. The report also points out that the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Defense, and Smithsonian Institution have some fossil responsibilities. The reports further find that agency enforcement and prosecution policies differ greatly and there is only limited and scattered authority for Federal management and protection of fossil resources on Federal lands. The report concludes that the scattered authorities result in case law on fossil protection that is not well developed and not necessarily consistent. The cases do not provide clear case precedent and are not necessarily applicable to broader protection, regulation, management, and marketing issues. Both reports conclude that there is an absence of uniform regulations for paleontological resources on Federal lands--as shown by an absence of precise uniform definitions of key terms--and that there is no comprehensive statute or management policy for the protection and management of fossils on Federal lands. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act embodies the principles recommended by an interagency group in a 2000 report to Congress entitled ``Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian Lands.'' The bill provides the paleontological equivalent of protections found in the Archaeological Resources Preservation Act. The bill finds that fossil resources on Federal lands are an irreplaceable part of the heritage of the United States and affirms that reasonable access to fossil resources should be provided for scientific, educational, and recreational purposes. The bill acknowledges the value of amateur collecting and provides an exception for casual collecting of invertebrate fossils, but protects vertebrate fossils found on Federal lands under a system of permits. The fossil bill does not restrict access of the interested public to fossils on public lands but rather will help create opportunities for involvement. For example, there are many amateur paleontologists volunteering to assist in the excavation and curation of fossils on national park lands already. Finally, I would like to emphasize that this bill in no way affects archaeological or cultural resources under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and Rehabilitation Act. They are exempted because they are very different types of resources This bill covers only paleontological remains-- fossils on Federal lands. As we look toward the future, public access to fossil resources will take on a new meaning, as digital images of fossils become available worldwide. Discoveries in paleontology are made more frequently than we realize. They shape how we learn about the world around us. In January of this year, Science Express, the on-line version of the journal Science, reported two studies using paleontological data to understand the causes of the ``Great Dying,'' or mass extinctions that occurred about 250 million years ago in the Permian-Triassic period. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act would create a legacy for the production of scientific knowledge for future generations. The protections offered in this act are not new. Federal land management agencies already have individual regulations prohibiting theft of government property. However, the reality is that U.S. attorneys are reluctant to prosecute cases involving fossil theft because they are difficult. The National Park Service reported 721 incidents of vandalism; and visitors annually take up to 12 tons of petrified wood from Petrified Forest National Park, a fact that has lead the NPCA to place the Petrified National Forest on its ``Ten Most Endangered National Parks'' lists in 2000 and 2001. Congress has not provided a clear statute stating the value of paleontological resources to our Nation, as has been provided for archaeological resources. Fossils are too valuable to be left within the general theft provisions that are difficult to prosecute, and they are too valuable to the education of our children not to ensure public access. We need to work together to make sure that we fulfill our responsibility as stewards of public lands, and as protectors of our Nation's natural resources. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Hawaii to introduce legislation to authorize three important water reclamation projects in the State of Hawaii. This legislation, the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005, is identical to legislation considered in the 108th Congress that passed the Senate by unanimous consent on May 19, 2004. Although one usually does not readily associate the State of Hawaii as a place with drought problems, Hawaii has been experiencing drought conditions since 1998. The Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005 builds upon the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000 P.L. 106-566 that authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to survey irrigation and water delivery systems in Hawaii and identify new opportunities for reclamation and reuse of water and wastewater for agriculture and non-agricultural purposes. While the Act resulted in the development of the initial Hawaii Drought Plan in 2000, which was updated this past year to incorporate comments and recommendations made by the Bureau of Reclamation, more needs to be done. Although Hawaii is just beginning to recover from a multi-year drought, the National Weather Service has indicated that due to a mild El Nino effect in the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii may again experience another period of drought. It is imperative for Hawaii to improve its ways to reduce consumption of drinking water. The legislation that I am introducing today, the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005, will help the State of Hawaii to be proactive by authorizing projects that will address the demand on our freshwater supply, especially on the islands of Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii. The legislation authorizes three projects. The first project, in Honolulu, will provide reliable potable water through resource diversification to meet existing and future demands, particularly in the Ewa area of Oahu where water demands are outpacing the availability of drinking water. The second project, in North Kona, will address the issue of effluent being discharged into a temporary disposal sump from the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project would utilize subsurface wetlands to naturally clean the effluent and convey the recycled water to a number of users. The third project, in Lahaina, will reduce the use of potable water by extending the County of Maui's main recycled water pipeline. The Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005 will begin the next phase of ensuring that the State of Hawaii will continue to have a supply of fresh drinking water. It is vitally important for the State to begin working on these water reclamation projects and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which is important to communities in Hawaii.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act to protect and preserve the Nation's important fossil record for the benefit of our citizens. I am pleased to have Senators Baucus, Feinstein, Durbin, Roberts, and Inouye join me as original cosponsors on this significant legislation. This bill was reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and approved by unanimous consent during the 108th Congress. A similar bill was introduced in the other body by Representative James R. McGovern, with 15 cosponsors, but was not reported by the Resources Committee. I hope we can pass this again quickly in the Senate and move the bill in the House of Representatives. You may remember that in 1999, Congress requested that the Secretary of the Interior review and report on the Federal policy concerning paleontological resources on Federal lands. In its request, Congress noted that no unified Federal policy existed regarding the--treatment of fossils by Federal land management agencies, and emphasized Congress's concerns that a lack of appropriate standards would lead to the deterioration or loss of fossils, which are valuable scientific resources. Unfortunately, that situation remains the case today. In the past year alone, there have been compelling finds of fossils that are helping us unlock the mysteries of the past from the earth, whether violent tectonic cataclysms or depletion of oxygen in the oceans and consequent drastic changes in species. The National Parks Conservation Association NPCA, a bipartisan non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing National Parks, recently called for ``stronger laws, better enforcement, and better education programs . . . to more fully protect these valuable [fossil] relics.'' In its Fall 2004 issue of National Parks, the article described the discovery at Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota, in July 2003, of fossilized remains of a 5-foot tall hornless rhinoceros, a collie-sized horse, and a foot-tall, deer-like mammal. National Parks are the home of many extraordinary fossil discoveries already, such as the graveyards of 20-million-year old camels and rhinos at Agate Fossil Beds National Monument in Nebraska, the only pygmy island-dwelling mammoth at Channel Islands National Park in California; and tropical dinosaurs in what are now the arid lands of the Painted Desert of southern Arizona. Besides the National Park Service, other Federal land management agencies have a number of regulations and directives on paleontological resources, but they are not consistent and there is no clear statutory language providing direction in protecting and curating fossils. I would like to commend to my colleagues two reports recently published by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, which we know as an impartial, non-partisan legislative research service that provides analysis for Congress. The CRS American Law Division published two reports entitled ``Federal Management and Protection of Fossil Resources on Federal Lands'' and, ``Paleontological Resources Protection Act: Proposal for the Management and Protection of Fossil Resources Located on Federal Lands.'' These two reports analyze the status and activities of Federal agencies with paleontological responsibilities, the statutory authorities for fossils, the case law supporting them, and the bills recently introduced on fossils such as S. 546 in the 108th Congress. The reports point out that several Federal agencies have management authority for the protection of fossil resources on the lands under their jurisdiction--the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service. The report also points out that the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Defense, and Smithsonian Institution have some fossil responsibilities. The reports further find that agency enforcement and prosecution policies differ greatly and there is only limited and scattered authority for Federal management and protection of fossil resources on Federal lands. The report concludes that the scattered authorities result in case law on fossil protection that is not well developed and not necessarily consistent. The cases do not provide clear case precedent and are not necessarily applicable to broader protection, regulation, management, and marketing issues. Both reports conclude that there is an absence of uniform regulations for paleontological resources on Federal lands--as shown by an absence of precise uniform definitions of key terms--and that there is no comprehensive statute or management policy for the protection and management of fossils on Federal lands. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act embodies the principles recommended by an interagency group in a 2000 report to Congress entitled ``Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian Lands.'' The bill provides the paleontological equivalent of protections found in the Archaeological Resources Preservation Act. The bill finds that fossil resources on Federal lands are an irreplaceable part of the heritage of the United States and affirms that reasonable access to fossil resources should be provided for scientific, educational, and recreational purposes. The bill acknowledges the value of amateur collecting and provides an exception for casual collecting of invertebrate fossils, but protects vertebrate fossils found on Federal lands under a system of permits. The fossil bill does not restrict access of the interested public to fossils on public lands but rather will help create opportunities for involvement. For example, there are many amateur paleontologists volunteering to assist in the excavation and curation of fossils on national park lands already. Finally, I would like to emphasize that this bill in no way affects archaeological or cultural resources under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and Rehabilitation Act. They are exempted because they are very different types of resources This bill covers only paleontological remains-- fossils on Federal lands. As we look toward the future, public access to fossil resources will take on a new meaning, as digital images of fossils become available worldwide. Discoveries in paleontology are made more frequently than we realize. They shape how we learn about the world around us. In January of this year, Science Express, the on-line version of the journal Science, reported two studies using paleontological data to understand the causes of the ``Great Dying,'' or mass extinctions that occurred about 250 million years ago in the Permian-Triassic period. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act would create a legacy for the production of scientific knowledge for future generations. The protections offered in this act are not new. Federal land management agencies already have individual regulations prohibiting theft of government property. However, the reality is that U.S. attorneys are reluctant to prosecute cases involving fossil theft because they are difficult. The National Park Service reported 721 incidents of vandalism; and visitors annually take up to 12 tons of petrified wood from Petrified Forest National Park, a fact that has lead the NPCA to place the Petrified National Forest on its ``Ten Most Endangered National Parks'' lists in 2000 and 2001. Congress has not provided a clear statute stating the value of paleontological resources to our Nation, as has been provided for archaeological resources. Fossils are too valuable to be left within the general theft provisions that are difficult to prosecute, and they are too valuable to the education of our children not to ensure public access. We need to work together to make sure that we fulfill our responsibility as stewards of public lands, and as protectors of our Nation's natural resources. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, so many of VA health care providers are truly dedicated to treating all of the ailments veterans face, including psychological ones. In an attempt to help VA providers understand the special needs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans, one particular VA health care region has made special efforts. The Brockton Division of the VA Boston Healthcare System Continuing Education Committee hosted a conference, entitled ``Preparing for the acute and long-term needs of Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans.'' Several experts in their respective fields served as speakers and made presentations to attendees. Brett Litz, Ph.D., of the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, discussed ``Promoting Continuity of Care and Understanding: Putting the Long-Term lmpact of the War in Afghanistan and Iraq in Context.'' Dr. Litz helped the crowd to appreciate the active-duty military mental health culture; understand the early intervention and the variety of interventions for acute trauma; and appreciate high probability themes to war-zone traumas in Afghanistan and Iraq veterans. Lieutenant Colonel Chuck Engel, MD, MPH, of Walter Reed Medical Center, addressed ``Quality of Post-Deployment Health Care in the Defense Health System--Steady Progress or Unified Promises?'' Lt. Col. Engel informed attendees of the strengths and limitations of Deployment health initiatives in the Department of Defense; ways to improve the continuity of care from postdeployment to discharge and beyond; and the role of primary care in identifying and treating mental health problems caused by exposure to war. Lieutenant Colonel Carl Castro, Ph.D., of Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, spoke about the ``Impact of Combat on the Mental Health of Soldiers,'' focusing on the findings of the Mental Health Assessment Team's evaluation of Iraq War veterans mental health and well-being in the warzone; the findings of the psychological screening program in the U.S. Army; and the risk and resilience factors that predict deployment and post-deployment mental health in active duty military personnel. The final featured speaker was Yuval Neria, Ph.D., of the New York Psychiatric Institute. Dr. Neria educated the audience about ``Israeli War Veterans and POW's Two Decades After the War: Findings from the Yom Kippur 1973 War.'' She concentrated her discussion on understanding the phenomenology of war-trauma; understanding the nature of combat stress reactions; and understanding the impact of war-trauma across the lifespan. These medical professionals provided just a snapshot of the strides VA has made and hopefully will continue to make in the field of war- trauma. I applaud these VA health care providers. As ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I will be working to ensure that DoD and VA cooperate to make sure that there is a seamless transition from active military status to veteran status. VA providers are quite obviously incredibly important as we seek to make this seamless transition.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise as a ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I do it with great expectation and look forward to working with my friend, Chairman Craig from Idaho. I look forward to working with the committee. We held our first meeting yesterday, and I would say that it was a great meeting and a good beginning for the committee. I am also pleased to support the nomination of James Nicholson to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs. If confirmed, Ambassador Nicholson will have the responsibility of steering the Department of Veterans Affairs through a period of great transformation. I recently had a chance to meet with Ambassador Nicholson and to discuss the many challenges he will face in guiding VA through this critical period. I have also had the opportunity to read his answers to prehearing questions that I submitted to him and also to hear his testimony at the January 24, 2005, hearing of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on his nomination. I believe Ambassador Nicholson has the commitment and has the drive and fortitude to maintain America's special obligation to our veterans. I know with his years of service to this Nation at West Point, in Vietnam, and as Ambassador to the Holy See, Ambassador Nicholson is familiar with the importance of the leadership role he will soon assume at VA. We expect him to hit the ground running to tackle VA's many challenges. And, of course, we will be there to work with him. It is widely known that on the health care side, VA is facing a crisis situation. In recent years, millions of veterans have come to VA for the first time. As I said yesterday to my colleagues, I think it is good news that millions have turned to VA for care. Some, however, believe we can deal with the burgeoning demand by reducing who is eligible for care. For me, however, this is not the answer. I hope Ambassador Nicholson will see the merits of keeping a full and open system. In addition to providing basic primary care, the VA system offers programs of enormous value, especially for veterans who are blind or have spinal cord injuries, who need prosthetic devices, or who require dependable mental health care. We must retain these specialized services and, at the same time, ensure that all veterans can have access to the care they have earned through their service. The VA research program will need some attention as well, as many of our finest physicians chose to come to VA so they can conduct research. Keeping the research program viable is tremendously important. Ambassador Nicholson has his work cut out for him in this regard. In the past, the Veterans Benefits Administration has come under fire for the lack of timeliness of its claims processing. While VBA has made progress in improving timeliness and accuracy of disability claims processing, further improvement is needed. Notably, VBA has turned its attention to decreasing the amount of time it takes to process a claim and taken its focus off appeals. A more balanced approach must be reached. We will be looking to Ambassador Nicholson for innovative approaches so that VBA can absorb changes in law and new business processes without always going into a nose dive. Our veterans deserve no less than quality workmanship done in a timely manner. Ambassador Nicholson's nomination process has been fairly expedited because VA's pressing needs require a new Secretary immediately. However, my committee will continue its strong oversight of the Department, and I encourage other Members to work with us in this endeavor. Madam President, in my view, Mr. Nicholson is ready for the challenges of this important position. He will bring to it his many experiences as someone who himself served as well as his sincere commitment to the well-being of his fellow veterans. I ask my colleagues to approve this nomination. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to comment today on S. 50, the Tsunami Preparedness Act of 2005, a timely and much-needed bill in the aftermath of the devastating tsunami in the Indian Ocean. The world has learned valuable lessons in the past month about human suffering and loss, as well as generosity and good fortune in the face of impossible odds. We have also learned a great deal about the generation of tsunamis, the need to instrument the ocean, and the need to assist in the development of a warning and civil defense system for vulnerable nations around the world. I joined my colleagues Senators Dan Inouye and Ted Sevens, the ranking member and chair, respectively, of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, as an original cosponsor of S. 50, the Tsunami Preparedness Act of 2005, which was introduced on Monday, January 24, 2005. The bill would authorize, expand, and improve our domestic tsunami warning system. Equally importantly, it would authorize the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to provide technical assistance and advice to appropriate international entities in developing a global tsunami warning system comprised of regional warning networks, modeled on the Tsunami Warning System of the Pacific. We must share our expertise and experience with other tsunami-prone nations around the world. My conviction is based on personal experience. In Hawaii, tsunamis have accounted for more lost lives than all other natural disasters. In the 20th century, an estimated 221 people were killed by tsunamis. Most of these deaths occurred on the island of Hawaii during the tsunamis of 1946 and 1960, two of the largest tsunamis to strike in the Pacific. I am hopeful that our experiences in Hawaii and the expertise of NOAA's two National Weather Service Tsunami Warning Centers located in Palmer, AK, and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Ewa Beach, HA, can help other nations around the world prepare for potential undersea earthquakes that result in these tragic disasters. One of the worst natural disasters in Hawaii's history took place April 1, 1946 when a magnitude 7.1 earthquake in the Aleutian Islands triggered a destructive, Pacific-wide tsunami that killed 159 people: 96 in Hilo, 15 on Kauai, 14 on Maui and nine on Oahu. There was no warning in Hawaii, as the Tsunami Warning System had not been established at that time. The town of Hilo was ``pounded'' by a series of 6 to 7 waves, one after the other. The waterfront and all the buildings facing Hilo Bay were completely destroyed. The tsunami flooded the downtown area of Hilo causing more than $26 million in damages. The photos that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took afterwards showed scenes similar to the ones we've seen in the past month in Thailand and Indonesia--everything was leveled and destroyed. The character of downtown Hilo was changed forever. Tragically, we lost a number of young children, students, killed by the tsunami in Laupahoehoe, a small community north and west of Hilo where the waves struck the school and destroyed a hospital. As a result, in 1949 the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center was established, which later became the headquarters of the International Pacific Warning System. This bill would authorize several programs in NOAA that we have depended on since 1949. It would deploy a greater number of buoys throughout the Pacific and it would expand the research on tsunamis and their detection to ensure a more reliable and better instrumented system for the Pacific, including Alaska, the West Coast of the U.S. and Pacific islands nations who are members of the group. It would expand the domestic system to the Atlantic and Caribbean where tsunamis are infrequent but not impossible. I would like to close with an appeal to my colleagues to consider the types of aid that the U.S. can provide to Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, and Thailand. We must not overlook the science and technology of tsunamis and tsunami detection. The detection, warnings, planning, and public education are perhaps the most important types of assistance we can provide, because they are preventive and represent the little that we can do to save lives in dealing with the forces of nature in the future. They are an investment in the future safety and security of humankind. This bill, most importantly, would mandate the U.S. to share its expertise and experience in the Pacific with those nations that have suffered such devastating losses from the Indian Ocean tsunami. With the technology we have, no family of nations need suffer in the future from such widespread devastation without warning and public awareness of what tsunamis are, what they can do, and how to react and plan for them. Hawaii and the Pacific has been well-prepared for tsunamis through 20 years of State and federal efforts through the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, which is a NOAA Federal-State partnership with or Hawaii Civil Defense program. This program has enhanced Hawaii's tsunami mitigation and preparedness programs. Sharing our experience, our successes, and our learning curves is a very important part of assistance in the aftermath of the tsunami. I urge support for this bill and commend my colleagues on the Commerce Committee, and its staff, for their foresight in addressing this issue and working with the executive branch to review and comment on this bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Hawaii to introduce the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. This is bipartisan legislation that we have been working on with our colleagues in Hawaii's Congressional delegation for the past 6 years. During the past 2 years, we have worked closely with Hawaii's Governor, Linda Lingle, Hawaii's first Republican governor in 40 years, to get this legislation enacted. We have also worked closely with the Hawaii State legislature which has passed two resolutions unanimously in support of Federal Recognition for Native Hawaiians. I mention this, to underscore the fact that this is bipartisan legislation. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005 does three things: (1) It authorizes the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the federal government. Funding for Native Hawaiian programs currently administered by the Departments of Health and Human Services, HHS, Education, or Housing and Urban Development, HUD, would continue to be administered by those agencies. (2) It establishes the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group--an interagency group to be composed of federal officials from agencies which administer Native Hawaiian programs and services. Many are not aware that Native Hawaiians have their own programs which are currently administered by different agencies in the Federal Government. This group would encourage communication and collaboration between the Federal agencies working with Native Hawaiians. (3) It establishes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. While Congress has traditionally treated Native Hawaiians in a manner parallel to American Indians and Alaska Natives, the formal policy of self-governance and self determination has not been extended to Native Hawaiians. The bill establishes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of Federal recognition. The bill itself does not extend Federal recognition--it authorizes the process for Federal recognition. Following recognition of the Native Hawaiian government, negotiations will ensue between the Native Hawaiian governing entity and Federal and State Governments over matters such as the transfer of lands and natural resources; the exercise of governmental authority over any transferred lands, natural resources and other assets, including land use; the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and the delegation of governmental powers and authorities to the Native Hawaiian governing entity by the Federal and State Governments. This reflects the cooperation between the Federal and State governments and the Native Hawaiian governing entity. It also reflects a new paradigm where recognition provides the governing entity with a seat at the table to negotiate such matters. The bill will not diminish funding for American Indians and Alaska Natives because Native Hawaiians have their own education, health and housing programs which have been separately funded since their creation in 1988. Finally, the bill does not authorize gaming in Hawaii. Some have characterized this bill as race-based legislation. As indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians never relinquished their inherent rights to sovereignty. We were a government that was overthrown. While the history of the Native Hawaiian government ended in 1893 with great emotion and despair, inspired by the dignity and grace of Queen Liliuokalani, Native Hawaiians have preserved their culture, tradition, subsistence rights, language, and distinct communities. We have tried to hold on to our homeland. Hawaii, for us, is our homeland. I am Native Hawaiian and Chinese. I appreciate the culture and ethnicity of my ancestors. I can trace my Chinese roots back to Fukien Province in China. My Native Hawaiian roots, however, are in Hawaii because it is our Hawaiian homeland. My Chinese ancestors came to Hawaii to build a better life. My Native Hawaiian grandparents and parents had America come into their homeland and forever change their lives. This is a profound difference. I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to have served my country in the military. As long as Hawaii is a part of the United States, however, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Hawaii's indigenous peoples. I believe it is imperative to clarify the existing legal and political relationship between the United States and Native Hawaiians by providing Native Hawaiians with Federal recognition for the purposes of a government-to- government relationship. Therefore, because this legislation is based on the political and legal relationship between the United States and its indigenous peoples, which has been upheld for many, many years, by the United States Supreme Court, based on the Indian Commerce Clause, I strenuously disagree with the mischaracterization of this legislation as race-based. Why is this bill so important? This bill is critical for the people of Hawaii because of the monumental step forward it provides for Hawaii's indigenous peoples. As many of my colleagues know, the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in 1893 with the assistance of agents from the United States. In 1993, we enacted Public Law 103-150, commonly referred to as the Apology Resolution, which acknowledged the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self determination. The Apology Resolution committed the United States to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow in order to provide a proper foundation of reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people. This bill provides a step forward in the process of reconciliation. The bill establishes the structure for Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians to discuss longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The structure is the negotiation process between the federally recognized Native Hawaiian government and the Federal and State governments that I referred to earlier in my statement. This discussion has been assiduously avoided because no one has known how to address or deal with the emotions that are involved when these matters are discussed. There has been no structured process. Instead, there has been fear as to what the discussion would entail, causing people to avoid and shirk the issues. Such behavior has led to high levels of anger and frustration as well as misunderstanding between Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians. As a young child, I was discouraged from speaking Hawaiian because I was told that I needed to succeed in the Western world. My parents witnessed the overthrow and lived during a time when all things Hawaiian, including language, which they both spoke fluently, hula, custom, and tradition, were viewed unfavorably and discouraged. I, therefore, was discouraged from speaking the language and practicing Hawaiian customs and tradition. My experience mirrors that of my generation of Hawaiians. My generation learned to accept what was ingrained into us by our parents, and while we were concerned about the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow dealing with political status and lands, we were told not to ``make waves'' by addressing these matters. My children, however, have had the advantage of growing up during the Hawaiian renaissance, a period of revival for Hawaiian language, custom, and tradition. My grandchildren, benefitting from this revival, can speak Hawaiian and know so much about our history. It is this generation, however, that is growing impatient with the lack of progress in efforts to resolve longstanding issues. It is this generation that does not understand why we have not discussed these matters. It is this generation that cannot believe that we, as Native Hawaiians, have let the situation continue for 110 years. It is an active minority within this generation, spurred by frustration and sadness, that embraces independence from the United States. It is for this generation that I bring this bill forward to ensure that there is a structured process to address these issues. My point is that Hawaii's people, both Native Hawaiians and non- Native Hawaiians, are no longer willing to pretend that the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow do not exist. We need the structured process that this bill provides, first in reorganizing the Native Hawaiian governing entity, and second by providing that entity with the opportunity to negotiate and resolve issues with the Federal and State governments to alleviate the growing mistrust, misunderstanding, anger, and frustration about these matters in Hawaii. This can only be done through a government-to-government relationship. This bill is of significant importance in Hawaii. It has no impact on any of the other states. Hawaii's entire Congressional delegation supports this legislation. Our Governor, the first Republican to be elected in 40 years, supports this legislation. Indeed, it is her Number One Federal priority. The Hawaii State Legislature supports this legislation. And most importantly, a clear majority of the Native Hawaiian people and the people of Hawaii support this legislation. I ask you to stand with me and my esteemed friend, Hawaii's revered senior Senator, our two House members, our Governor, the Hawaii State legislature, and the people of Hawaii to enact this critical measure for my state. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 147 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Hawaii to introduce the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. This is bipartisan legislation that we have been working on with our colleagues in Hawaii's Congressional delegation for the past 6 years. During the past 2 years, we have worked closely with Hawaii's Governor, Linda Lingle, Hawaii's first Republican governor in 40 years, to get this legislation enacted. We have also worked closely with the Hawaii State legislature which has passed two resolutions unanimously in support of Federal Recognition for Native Hawaiians. I mention this, to underscore the fact that this is bipartisan legislation. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005 does three things: (1) It authorizes the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the federal government. Funding for Native Hawaiian programs currently administered by the Departments of Health and Human Services, HHS, Education, or Housing and Urban Development, HUD, would continue to be administered by those agencies. (2) It establishes the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group--an interagency group to be composed of federal officials from agencies which administer Native Hawaiian programs and services. Many are not aware that Native Hawaiians have their own programs which are currently administered by different agencies in the Federal Government. This group would encourage communication and collaboration between the Federal agencies working with Native Hawaiians. (3) It establishes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. While Congress has traditionally treated Native Hawaiians in a manner parallel to American Indians and Alaska Natives, the formal policy of self-governance and self determination has not been extended to Native Hawaiians. The bill establishes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of Federal recognition. The bill itself does not extend Federal recognition--it authorizes the process for Federal recognition. Following recognition of the Native Hawaiian government, negotiations will ensue between the Native Hawaiian governing entity and Federal and State Governments over matters such as the transfer of lands and natural resources; the exercise of governmental authority over any transferred lands, natural resources and other assets, including land use; the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and the delegation of governmental powers and authorities to the Native Hawaiian governing entity by the Federal and State Governments. This reflects the cooperation between the Federal and State governments and the Native Hawaiian governing entity. It also reflects a new paradigm where recognition provides the governing entity with a seat at the table to negotiate such matters. The bill will not diminish funding for American Indians and Alaska Natives because Native Hawaiians have their own education, health and housing programs which have been separately funded since their creation in 1988. Finally, the bill does not authorize gaming in Hawaii. Some have characterized this bill as race-based legislation. As indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians never relinquished their inherent rights to sovereignty. We were a government that was overthrown. While the history of the Native Hawaiian government ended in 1893 with great emotion and despair, inspired by the dignity and grace of Queen Liliuokalani, Native Hawaiians have preserved their culture, tradition, subsistence rights, language, and distinct communities. We have tried to hold on to our homeland. Hawaii, for us, is our homeland. I am Native Hawaiian and Chinese. I appreciate the culture and ethnicity of my ancestors. I can trace my Chinese roots back to Fukien Province in China. My Native Hawaiian roots, however, are in Hawaii because it is our Hawaiian homeland. My Chinese ancestors came to Hawaii to build a better life. My Native Hawaiian grandparents and parents had America come into their homeland and forever change their lives. This is a profound difference. I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to have served my country in the military. As long as Hawaii is a part of the United States, however, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Hawaii's indigenous peoples. I believe it is imperative to clarify the existing legal and political relationship between the United States and Native Hawaiians by providing Native Hawaiians with Federal recognition for the purposes of a government-to- government relationship. Therefore, because this legislation is based on the political and legal relationship between the United States and its indigenous peoples, which has been upheld for many, many years, by the United States Supreme Court, based on the Indian Commerce Clause, I strenuously disagree with the mischaracterization of this legislation as race-based. Why is this bill so important? This bill is critical for the people of Hawaii because of the monumental step forward it provides for Hawaii's indigenous peoples. As many of my colleagues know, the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in 1893 with the assistance of agents from the United States. In 1993, we enacted Public Law 103-150, commonly referred to as the Apology Resolution, which acknowledged the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self determination. The Apology Resolution committed the United States to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow in order to provide a proper foundation of reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people. This bill provides a step forward in the process of reconciliation. The bill establishes the structure for Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians to discuss longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The structure is the negotiation process between the federally recognized Native Hawaiian government and the Federal and State governments that I referred to earlier in my statement. This discussion has been assiduously avoided because no one has known how to address or deal with the emotions that are involved when these matters are discussed. There has been no structured process. Instead, there has been fear as to what the discussion would entail, causing people to avoid and shirk the issues. Such behavior has led to high levels of anger and frustration as well as misunderstanding between Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians. As a young child, I was discouraged from speaking Hawaiian because I was told that I needed to succeed in the Western world. My parents witnessed the overthrow and lived during a time when all things Hawaiian, including language, which they both spoke fluently, hula, custom, and tradition, were viewed unfavorably and discouraged. I, therefore, was discouraged from speaking the language and practicing Hawaiian customs and tradition. My experience mirrors that of my generation of Hawaiians. My generation learned to accept what was ingrained into us by our parents, and while we were concerned about the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow dealing with political status and lands, we were told not to ``make waves'' by addressing these matters. My children, however, have had the advantage of growing up during the Hawaiian renaissance, a period of revival for Hawaiian language, custom, and tradition. My grandchildren, benefitting from this revival, can speak Hawaiian and know so much about our history. It is this generation, however, that is growing impatient with the lack of progress in efforts to resolve longstanding issues. It is this generation that does not understand why we have not discussed these matters. It is this generation that cannot believe that we, as Native Hawaiians, have let the situation continue for 110 years. It is an active minority within this generation, spurred by frustration and sadness, that embraces independence from the United States. It is for this generation that I bring this bill forward to ensure that there is a structured process to address these issues. My point is that Hawaii's people, both Native Hawaiians and non- Native Hawaiians, are no longer willing to pretend that the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow do not exist. We need the structured process that this bill provides, first in reorganizing the Native Hawaiian governing entity, and second by providing that entity with the opportunity to negotiate and resolve issues with the Federal and State governments to alleviate the growing mistrust, misunderstanding, anger, and frustration about these matters in Hawaii. This can only be done through a government-to-government relationship. This bill is of significant importance in Hawaii. It has no impact on any of the other states. Hawaii's entire Congressional delegation supports this legislation. Our Governor, the first Republican to be elected in 40 years, supports this legislation. Indeed, it is her Number One Federal priority. The Hawaii State Legislature supports this legislation. And most importantly, a clear majority of the Native Hawaiian people and the people of Hawaii support this legislation. I ask you to stand with me and my esteemed friend, Hawaii's revered senior Senator, our two House members, our Governor, the Hawaii State legislature, and the people of Hawaii to enact this critical measure for my state. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 13 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would make sweeping changes to the way the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) delivers health care and benefits to our nation's veterans. S. 13 would, among other things, guarantee full funding for VA health care, provide for full concurrent receipt, enhance mental health care services, and ease the transition from military service to civilian life. This bill would mean that the 115,000 veterans who choose to make Hawaii their home would be assured the services they have earned. The nearly 18,000 veterans who avail themselves of VA health care in Honolulu, Hawaii, Kauai, and Maui would not have to worry if resources for doctors and nurses will materialize next year. And because so many of our reservists and Guardsmen are being deployed for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this bill will help ensure they get the care they need upon their return. Every year the President sends forward his budget proposal to Congress, and every year we go through the same battles to get VA health care the money it needs to adequately serve its veteran patients. The time has come to approach this process more rationally. This legislation would ensure full funding for VA health care by simply changing the way funds are allocated. To be perfectly clear, this bill merely shifts money already being allocated over to a more reliable mechanism. The American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars support this approach to fully fund the veterans health care system. These three organizations--representing more than 7 million military veterans--rightly believe that veterans have earned the right to VA medical care through their ``extraordinary sacrifices and service to this Nation.'' We have seen huge numbers of veterans seeking VA care for the first time. I, for one, believe this is a good thing. Others rationalize that as we are at war, we must cut back on VA care. I simply do not understand this logic. We are at war, and therefore we must do everything we can to show our military that VA health care will be there for all veterans who served. To accomplish this goal, we must change the way VA health care is funded. Although we have continued to make progress on eliminating the long- standing injustice that has affected our disabled retired veterans' retirement pay, we still have work to do. S. 13 will correct this unfairness by allowing all disabled military retirees to collect both their full military retired and VA disability pay concurrently. Most military retirees who have a service-connected disability are not permitted to collect both their retirement and disability benefits concurrently. Military retired pay is the promised reward for 20 or more years of uniformed service and is based on length of service. VA disability compensation is unrelated to length of service and is intended to compensate a veteran for a service-connected loss of function. In order to continue to recruit and retain quality soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, we must pay attention not only to the present, but also to the future. George Washington said: The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation. Our disabled military retirees deserve to receive the retirement pay that they earned and be compensated for their service-connected disabilities. Our young people will wear the uniforms of our Armed Forces only if they believe that their service is appreciated and compensated accordingly. Along those lines, S. 13 also seeks to ensure that veterans and returning service members can receive the mental health care they might need as a result of their service. The legislation requires that VA employ at least one psychiatrist and treatment team at each medical center that does not currently have one. This legislation would also mandate that VA carry out a community outreach program to let Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans know about the services available to them at VA. Why is good VA mental health care so important? Because so often battle wounds do not manifest in physical illness, but in quiet and equally debilitating mental illness. These wounds are revealed as post-traumatic stress disorder with effects that linger and symptoms that can be brought on years after combat. While hypertension and heart disease afflict vast numbers of veterans, mental illness is not far behind. It might surprise some of my colleagues to know that cancer and depression affect roughly the same number of veterans. But is VA reaching and treating all veterans who need care? This remains very much an open question. This legislation also seeks to improve access to needed prescription drugs. Many veterans have expressed their desire to bring prescriptions from their Medicare doctors to VA pharmacies to get them filled. Current VA policy requires that nearly all veterans see a VA doctor before such prescriptions are issued. This does not make sense. The Department's inspector general testified that VA could see savings of $1 billion a year if veterans were allowed to bring their outside prescriptions, because it would obviate the need for VA to re diagnose patients and then re-issue prescriptions that have already been written. S. 13 would allow these veterans to get their prescriptions filled by VA at prices that are far better than in the private sector. This legislation also seeks to help veterans with their education. S. 13 would exclude MGIB benefits from computation as income when calculating campus based aid, such as Perkins loans. This draws the distinction between a benefit that has been earned, and paid for, by the veterans, and other types of income. This allows the individual applying for financial aid to subtract $1,200 from the expected family contribution for 1 year. This $1,200 represents the money that the individual paid to participate in the MGIB program. S. 13 also offers an opportunity for enrollment in the MGIB education program for servicemembers who participated in or were eligible to participate in the post-Vietnam era educational assistance program, known as VEAP. This bill would create a 1-year window and requires the individual to pay $2,700, which was the VEAP contribution. Last year, Congress extended the period of eligibility for education benefits for survivors of servicemembers who were killed during active duty. We would like to further extend this delimiting date for veterans and other dependents. The 10-year period of eligibility would not begin to toll until they began to use the benefit, rather than when they became eligible for the benefit. Overall, this is a bill to spur dialogue started on the issues that are truly important to our Nation's veterans. We all need to work harder towards the goal of seeing that the promises made to the men and women who are serving today are met; that their sacrifices were not in vain. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.