Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Maine for bringing this important program to my attention. Hawklink

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be added as cosponsor to amendment No. 3192.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. We support these amendments.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I join in that motion.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to endorse the comments of the chairman of our subcommittee regarding this Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 to the Senate. This bill does reflect a bipartisan approach. This is the approach Senator Inouye and I have always maintained regarding the Department of Defense appropriations. The fact is this bill was reported out of the full Appropriations Committee almost 3 weeks ago by a unanimous vote. We hope, as the chairman of the subcommittee said, to finish this bill this week so we can proceed to conference as soon as possible after the October recess for Columbus Day. Our fiscal year began yesterday. Normally this bill would have been signed by the President by this time. But it is a matter that still has extreme urgency, as far as I am concerned, to get it before the President. As Senator Inouye has said, as a temporary measure we do have the continuing resolution in place to keep operations ongoing in the Department of Defense until this bill becomes law. That is a temporary measure. There are many acquisition activities that simply cannot be initiated under a continuing resolution. They require an annual appropriations bill to be enacted. Under the continuing resolution, there are very limited amounts available each month to the Department. That is not sufficient to sustain a force in the field as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a matter of fact, there are hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform deployed throughout the world. They serve our country now in over 154 countries, and in our own country here, in the United States. Their bravery and dedication to our country is extraordinary and their sacrifices do not go unnoticed. We must not lose sight of our responsibility to support them in an expeditious manner, and completely. These people depend on us and it is our job to see to it they have all of the supplies, ammunition, and equipment they need to carry out their orders. Each year the Department of Defense faces the critical challenge of balancing the cost of maintaining high levels of readiness, being ready to respond to any call wherever it occurs, whenever it is necessary. This means we must adequately invest in those technologies that will prepare us for the future, prepare us for the threats of tomorrow as well as conduct the activities we have ongoing in those 154 countries and in particular in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill Senator Inouye and I present today reflects a prudent balance among those challenges. I concur--may I say I concur reluctantly--in Senator Inouye's request that we not have supplemental items added to this bill. This is the first year we have not had, as part of the bill, a so-called bridge to cover the transition between one fiscal year to the next, in terms of the demands of the war. Very clearly, if we are going to send the MRAPs over to Iraq--these are the new vehicles that protect lives, that are saving lives--we need funding in advance. I am told we have over 30 different manufacturers working on these machines now. They have to be paid. I do believe the supplemental is absolutely necessary and I am very worried about it. It is to me a very difficult thing to believe the time might come when we do not have the money to pay for these MRAPs and they will stay in this country rather than be taken to Iraq and Afghanistan. There are other new facilities and equipment that are needed by the Department of Defense. This is an ongoing. I was talking to my colleague Sid Ashworth today about the transformation of the military. At the same time as our people are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and are defending us in these other 152 countries, we face the problem of transforming our military into the military of the future. New technologies, new techniques, and new requirements demand change. That change demands new equipment and new research to assure we have the basic equipment and technology base we need to protect this country for the future. I worry about a process that is slowing down the money that now for 4 years has been presented in a supplemental, an addition to this bill as it was passed. This will be the first year we have not included that in the consideration of the appropriations bill. As I said, I am following the lead of our chairman, but I do believe we cannot go home this year without providing the money to carry over through the new year and into the period of next year before we can get another bill passed. This is, to me, a very serious matter and one I hope to speak on later, at great length, as a matter of fact. But I do again thank Senator Inouye, our chairman, for his courtesy, his leadership, and his friendship as we move this bill to the floor. We welcome for consideration any amendments our colleagues wish to present. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Earl Rilington and Eric Perritt, fellows serving in Senator Cochran's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of this Defense Department appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 343, I voted ``yea.'' I intended to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. This will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to about 7 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor today to honor one of Alaska's most admired pioneers and a dear friend of mine and my whole family. Alaskans will remember Augie Hiebert for his many achievements in the field of broadcasting and for opening the doors to modern communications for all Alaskans. In a State with few roads, where hundreds of miles of wilderness often separate towns and villages, Alaskans rely upon airwaves to connect them with people and events across our State, across the country, and around the globe. Augie was one of the first to bring the benefits of broadcast technology to our last frontier. At an early age, Augie developed a fascination for electronics and radio which would lead him to a career in broadcasting. While growing up on an orchard in Washington State during the Great Depression, Augie built his own first radio. He earned his ham radio license at the age of 15. He was just 22 years old when he came to Fairbanks in 1939 to help a friend build KFAR Radio. On the morning of December 7, 1941, Augie was listening to ham radio broadcasts at KFAR's transmitter when he heard of the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was one of the first in Alaska to hear the shocking news and immediately alerted the commander of Ladd Field right there in Fairbanks. Having witnessed firsthand the impact broadcasting had on the lives of those who were living in Alaskan territory, Augie set out to bring the technology of television to what we call our great land. In 1953, Augie built Alaska's first television station, KTVA, bringing news, weather, sports, and entertainment to the people of Anchorage. Two years later, he broadcast the first television shows to Fairbanks when he built KTVF. Augie's TV stations brought history's defining events from around the globe into Alaska's living rooms. In 1969, Augie gave us the first live satellite broadcasts, and Alaskans from Fairbanks to Anchorage watched Neil Armstrong walk on the moon. As Alaska's broadcast industry grew, so did Augie's family. He and his wife Pat raised four daughters. During his long career in broadcasting, Augie served Alaska in many ways. He was the founder and president of the Alaska Broadcasters Association. When I was practicing law, I helped him form that association. Every year, Augie brought a group of Alaskan broadcasters to Washington for Alaska Day at the Federal Communications Commission, where he gave them a rare opportunity to speak on a one-to-one basis with commissioners about the unique challenges facing broadcasters in Alaska. But Augie's efforts to educate the FCC about Alaskan broadcasting didn't end there. He invited them, and the entire FCC at one time traveled to Alaska at his request. In the early 1980s, Augie led the fight to preserve AM broadcast coverage in Alaska, which resulted in the creation of the class of the 1-N FCC category, a category just for our State of Alaska. Over the years, Augie introduced countless Alaskans to broadcasting and gave many their start in the industry. Though he officially retired in 1997, Augie remained committed to the future of broadcasting in Alaska, and until the day of his death, he was talking to me about the problem of white spaces in the current debate over new digital broadcasting. He became a mentor to the students at Mirror Lake Middle School in Chugiak, AK, where he shared his enthusiasm for broadcasting and he helped students produce news programs for the school's closed-circuit television system, and they did that every morning before school started. He showed them how to prepare a morning show for their school. Augie brought leading professionals in the field of broadcasting to Mirror Lake to share their experiences and knowledge with these students. Today, the school operates a low-powered FM radio station which Augie helped build and license. It is the only class D low- powered radio license in the country issued to a school. Rather than all of the firsts he achieved during his long career, Alaskans will remember Augie most as the man who made the Nation's largest State a little bit smaller. His efforts brought us closer to one another and closer to the rest of the world. Our thoughts and prayers are with Augie's daughters, their families, and all who loved him. This man was a great American, a great Alaskan, and my great friend.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, since its inception, the Internet has provided a powerful economic boost to our Nation, especially in rural areas. It has become an important everyday tool for millions of Americans, a valuable educational resource, and a powerful mechanism for communication. To ensure the Internet's benefits are available to as many people as possible, Congress should reduce obstacles to broadband access. One way to accomplish this goal is to prevent taxes from being imposed on Internet access, because such taxes will only drive up the overall cost of the use of the Internet. The Internet Tax Freedom Act, first passed by Congress in 1998, established a moratorium on State and local governments' ability to tax Internet access. Extended in 2004, that moratorium will expire on November 1--less than 2 months from today. Legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate to extend the Internet tax moratorium. I have been supportive of such legislation and expressed support when the Senate Commerce Committee explored the issue at a hearing on May 23 of this year. Our chairman, Senator Inouye, has been very supportive of the concept of keeping taxes off the Internet. Tremendous investment, growth, and innovation in broadband deployment has occurred since the moratorium was first adopted. In order for this progress to continue, Congress should extend the Internet tax moratorium before it expires this fall. If it is not extended by November 1, more states could take the opportunity to quickly pass laws and impose new taxes on the Internet. Such taxes would only serve to expand the digital divide between those who can afford broadband access and those who cannot. The Internet has allowed States such as Alaska to compete on a more level playing field. Alaskans are now able to market their goods to customers in the lower 48 and around the world, which is especially beneficial for small businesses located in remote areas. Improved broadband access has also eliminated distance barriers for education and medicine, providing rural areas with a higher quality of life. Faster, cheaper Internet access also helps drive America's economic engine and creates new jobs. Continued broadband deployment will help ensure America keeps this competitive edge. Without it, our Nation will fall behind in the global economy. If discriminatory taxes are imposed on Internet access, our country will face a real danger, and the rest of the world will no longer look to the United States for Internet innovations. The date the Internet tax moratorium is set to expire--November 1--is fast approaching. It is my hope Congress will act to extend this important moratorium before that deadline arrives. While the expiration of the Internet tax moratorium is the most pressing broadband issue before Congress right now, several more issues should also be addressed to encourage greater broadband deployment and availability in this country. First and foremost, universal service should be updated so that rural America has the same broadband opportunities as the rest of America. This will require the work of both Congress and the Federal Communications Commission. Additionally, the Government should try to stay away from doing things that would reverse the recent policy trends of encouraging broadband deployment through free market principles. I sincerely hope that the Congress will act to extend this moratorium in a prompt fashion. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a Senate joint resolution directing the United States to initiate efforts with other Nations to negotiate international agreements for managing migratory and transboundary fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean. As we have seen in far too many cases around the world, fish stocks can easily become depleted when the international community fails to develop effective, science based agreements for conserving and managing shared fish stocks. The goal of this resolution is to ensure that we do not repeat that same mistake with any commercial fisheries that develop in the Arctic Ocean. In many ways, the Arctic Ocean is the final frontier into which the world's commercial fisheries may expand. Currently, industrial fishing in this ocean has been limited by the distribution of fish habitat and the short duration of favorable fishing conditions, but that may change in the coming years. Scientific evidence suggests that as the world's climate changes, ocean temperature regimes may shift and cause many fish stocks to colonize new habitats in the Arctic Ocean. Similarly, fishing vessels may gain greater access to previously inhospitable areas of the Arctic. Taken together, these potential shifts may create favorable conditions for expanding commercial fisheries in the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and other nations that have access to the remote arctic waters. Having seen the fish stock declines that come when multiple nations target the same stocks without effective coordinated management, it is vital that these nations work together to prevent this outcome. Given the benefit of foresight and our ability to anticipate the need for international fisheries management systems in the Arctic, we must now begin the process of creating such a system before commercial fisheries become firmly established there. The North Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council, the body that manages U.S. fisheries in the North Pacific, recognizes the need to develop an effective management plan for Arctic Ocean fishing before significant fishing activity occurs. In June 2007, the council approved a proposal to close all Federal waters in the Arctic Ocean to fishing until they develop and implement a fisheries management plan. This action should serve as a signal to the rest of the United States and to all nations interested in Arctic Ocean fishing that sound conservation and management plans should be our top priority before moving forward to develop commercial fisheries there. This Senate joint resolution builds upon the efforts of the North Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council and takes it a step further by calling on the United States to lead international efforts to develop international fisheries management agreements for the Arctic Ocean. Such agreements should promote management systems for member nations that emphasize science-based limits on harvests, timely and accurate reporting of catch-and-trade data, equitable allocation and access systems, and effective monitoring and enforcement. These fisheries management principles are consistent with the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments Act that was enacted last January and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. Such principles are vital for preventing proliferation of illegal, unreported, and unregulated--what we call IUU--fishing which unfortunately continues to plague and undermine other international fisheries. This resolution contains other important provisions as well. While negotiating any agreements for the arctic fisheries, the United States should consult with the North Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council and Alaska Native subsistence communities in the Arctic. And, of course, consistent with the President's October 2006 Memorandum on Promoting Sustainable Fisheries and Ending Destructive Fishing Practices, this resolution calls on the United States to support international efforts to halt the expansion of commercial fisheries on the high seas of the Arctic Ocean until effective international agreements are enforced. On behalf of Alaska's subsistence and commercial fishing communities and the organizations that work to sustain our fisheries, I thank the many cosponsors of this resolution for sharing our great concern for sound fisheries management. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a Senate joint resolution directing the United States to initiate efforts with other Nations to negotiate international agreements for managing migratory and transboundary fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean. As we have seen in far too many cases around the world, fish stocks can easily become depleted when the international community fails to develop effective, science based agreements for conserving and managing shared fish stocks. The goal of this resolution is to ensure that we do not repeat that same mistake with any commercial fisheries that develop in the Arctic Ocean. In many ways, the Arctic Ocean is the final frontier into which the world's commercial fisheries may expand. Currently, industrial fishing in this ocean has been limited by the distribution of fish habitat and the short duration of favorable fishing conditions, but that may change in the coming years. Scientific evidence suggests that as the world's climate changes, ocean temperature regimes may shift and cause many fish stocks to colonize new habitats in the Arctic Ocean. Similarly, fishing vessels may gain greater access to previously inhospitable areas of the Arctic. Taken together, these potential shifts may create favorable conditions for expanding commercial fisheries in the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and other nations that have access to the remote arctic waters. Having seen the fish stock declines that come when multiple nations target the same stocks without effective coordinated management, it is vital that these nations work together to prevent this outcome. Given the benefit of foresight and our ability to anticipate the need for international fisheries management systems in the Arctic, we must now begin the process of creating such a system before commercial fisheries become firmly established there. The North Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council, the body that manages U.S. fisheries in the North Pacific, recognizes the need to develop an effective management plan for Arctic Ocean fishing before significant fishing activity occurs. In June 2007, the council approved a proposal to close all Federal waters in the Arctic Ocean to fishing until they develop and implement a fisheries management plan. This action should serve as a signal to the rest of the United States and to all nations interested in Arctic Ocean fishing that sound conservation and management plans should be our top priority before moving forward to develop commercial fisheries there. This Senate joint resolution builds upon the efforts of the North Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council and takes it a step further by calling on the United States to lead international efforts to develop international fisheries management agreements for the Arctic Ocean. Such agreements should promote management systems for member nations that emphasize science-based limits on harvests, timely and accurate reporting of catch-and-trade data, equitable allocation and access systems, and effective monitoring and enforcement. These fisheries management principles are consistent with the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments Act that was enacted last January and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. Such principles are vital for preventing proliferation of illegal, unreported, and unregulated--what we call IUU--fishing which unfortunately continues to plague and undermine other international fisheries. This resolution contains other important provisions as well. While negotiating any agreements for the arctic fisheries, the United States should consult with the North Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council and Alaska Native subsistence communities in the Arctic. And, of course, consistent with the President's October 2006 Memorandum on Promoting Sustainable Fisheries and Ending Destructive Fishing Practices, this resolution calls on the United States to support international efforts to halt the expansion of commercial fisheries on the high seas of the Arctic Ocean until effective international agreements are enforced. On behalf of Alaska's subsistence and commercial fishing communities and the organizations that work to sustain our fisheries, I thank the many cosponsors of this resolution for sharing our great concern for sound fisheries management. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, while I support S. 1, I strongly oppose the provision within it which will require members to fully reimburse private plane flights at so-called fair market value. This requirement is unnecessarily excessive for intrastate travel, it places an undue burden on Members from rural States, and its enactment will come at great expense to American taxpayers. The Senate's current rule requires members to pay the cost of a first-class ticket any time we travel by private plane. In areas with no regularly scheduled air service, Members pay their proportionate cost of chartering the same or similar aircraft. This rule ensures that Members pay the fair market value of traveling on such aircraft, while at the same time recognizing that private air travel is, at times, a necessity. Because these flights often represent the only way to access rural areas, most Members who travel by private plane do so to complete official business. While I understand the desire to stem the perception and practice of members traveling in lush private jets, in reality, traveling on these types of aircraft is the exception rather than the rule. In my home state, my staff and I routinely travel in propeller and float planes. These are not luxurious jets. If any Member believes differently, I welcome them to travel with me as I traverse the State from Tuntatooliak to Savoonga. Alaska does not have the transportation infrastructure found in more densely populated areas of the country. More than 70 percent of our State's towns and villages are not accessible by road year-round. We need to fly in order to reach these remote communities. If a private plane with others aboard is going to the same village I am, I should be able to get on that plane at a reasonable price. During initial consideration of S. 1 in January, Members of the Senate raised concerns regarding the impact that the revised travel rules had on their ability to meet with their constituents. That measure, as drafted, would not have affected lobbyists--it impacted real people and prevented their elected representatives from responding to the issues they face. As such, I offered an amendment designed to address the concerns of rural State Senators in ensuring their ability to continue to travel around their States. I declined to pursue the amendment on the Senate floor when leadership on both sides of the aisle agreed to consider this matter during conference. Unfortunately, this matter was not addressed because of the Senate's inability to conference the legislation. While other travel matters were addressed, such as permitting Members to travel on their own planes or on the planes of their family members, the issue of rural transportation costs was not. Given this unfortunate circumstance, I have again introduced an amendment to address this situation. My amendment would require travel on private planes to be precleared by each Chamber's Ethics Committee to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. It would also allow the committee to set and publicly disclose the rate we pay for each trip. The private plane provision in S. 1 will not produce meaningful reform and will only increase the amount of money Members need from the Treasury to pay for these flights. Ultimately, it will be the taxpayer who foots this bill, and the only real change will be more money in the pockets of those who own and operate private planes. A perfect example will come later this month, when a Cabinet Secretary and staff travel to Alaska. We plan to visit several western Alaska communities, and private plane is the only way to reach them in a single day. Under the Senate's current rule, each individual would pay their share of the charter rate or an equivalent first-class fare. This rule is equitable: The operator of the flight would be paid a reasonable expense for our travel. Under S. 1, my staff and I would pay fair market value--the entire price of the private plane. The Cabinet Secretary and their staff, according to their department's rules, would also reimburse the company for the costs associated with their travel. Any State and local officials who travel with us will likewise be required to pay for their seats. The end result of this legislation will be a windfall for companies and a travesty for taxpayers--the very opposite of intended effects. Our system needs transparency, not additional financial burdens for hard-working Americans. I am told that another provision of this legislation may be of interest to many Members of this Chamber--in fact, I may be the only one it will not affect. Section 601 of S. 1 will require a sitting President, or a President's campaign, to pay for Members who travel on Air Force One. This provision will make campaigns even more expensive than they are today, and again do very little to increase transparency. Lobbying reform is necessary, but it cannot harm our ability to do our jobs. Members should disclose flights on private planes, provide the reasons for their travel, and receive approval from the Ethics Committee prior to any travel. However, there is absolutely no reason why each seat should be paid for more than once. By requiring the reimbursement of private flights at fair market value, S. 1 will prevent many Members from serving their constituents effectively. While the majority leader's interest in passing this legislation is understandable, the Senate should ensure it does not adversely impact taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to consider these consequences and adopt my amendment.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I missed the 10:30 a.m. vote today because I was at Arlington Cemetery for the interment services for LTG Robert Allen Breitweiser. Lieutenant General Breitweiser was one of the commanding officers of the Fourteenth Air Force when I served in the China-Burma-India theater, and he turned into a good friend when he was assigned to the Alaskan North American Air Defense Command from 1967 to 1969. It was also an occasion for me because Lieutenant General Breitweiser's assistant was Tony Langhorn Motley, who, along with me, survived the airplane crash in which my wife and four others were killed in 1978. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lieutenant General Breitweiser's full biography be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman and ranking member of the 9/11 bill conference committee for their efforts to bring the conference report before the Senate. This was no small task and they, along with other conferees and staff, are to be commended. Despite these efforts, however, the final conference report includes objectionable maritime cargo scanning language that could be devastating to both the international and domestic flow of commerce. The decision to mandate scanning for 100 percent of cargo containers is a risky proposition because it does not follow a risk-based approach: The title of the final conference report clearly states that its purpose is to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. But the commission did not advocate for the scanning--or even screening--of 100 percent of the containers arriving at our shores. The 9/11 Commission recommended instead that we mitigate our vulnerabilities to terrorism in a logical manner by applying our resources based on risk, and specifically cautioned us not to employ a blanket approach. Our Nation's ports, including the Port of Anchorage, are vital to our economies--both regional and national. Ensuring their security must be a top priority. But a mandate to scan every cargo container entering the U.S. could shut down many of these ports, and the resulting delays for both imports and exports would be excessive and costly for consumers. Moreover, it is likely that foreign nations will disregard any caveats we may provide, and according to a European union diplomat, The E.U. would consider imposing reciprocal requirements and filing a complaint against the United States in the World Trade Organization. This fact renders the approach taken by this bill with respect to scanning cargo unworkable internationally. Here at home, these cargo scanning provisions may be equally, if not more, devastating to rural economies. Communities in the lower 48 are served by multiple transportation modes distributing basic supplies like food and other consumer goods. In Alaska, however, over 90 percent of our supplies flow through the Port of Anchorage. Any disruption at this port would be a disaster for Alaskans, not to mention to the Port of Tacoma, which serves as a conduit for cargo transiting to and from Alaska. Some contend that we are not doing enough for port security. I disagree. Not even one year ago, we passed the Safe Port Act. While many of us made these same arguments concerning 100 percent scanning during the debate of that bill, we ultimately settled on directing DHS to conduct a pilot program to determine whether 100 percent scanning of cargo containers is even feasible. The pilot began earlier this year and we are only now beginning to get a clearer picture of the complexities that scanning entails. Mandating 100 percent scanning of cargo containers without the benefit of the results of the pilot tests is premature and counterproductive. Homeland security should not be used as a rhetorical tool. Let us first learn from the lessons promised by the Safe Port Act's pilot tests before committing ourselves to an irrational, costly, and potentially ineffective approach to securing our Nation. I thank the following staff of the Senate Commerce Committee for their hard work on this bill: Pamela Friedman, Mark Delich, Jarrod Thompson, Chris Bertram, Mike Blank, Kim Nahigian, Paul Nagle, Christine Kurth, Dan Neumann, Betsy McDonnell, and David Wonnenberg. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. What is the Dorgan amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I support this amendment for the dignified treatment of wounded warriors. It creates a comprehensive policy for the care and management of wounded military servicemembers and addresses the health care needs of servicemembers and their families. We urgently need this provision for a seamless transition from military to civilian life. The policy and standards for the DOD and the Veterans' Administration in this provision will streamline medical and physical disability evaluation processes between the two agencies, allowing for more immediate attention to the care of our wounded instead of focusing on paperwork for the board. This is an exhausting process. The care of our wounded servicemembers' families is addressed by reimbursing them for related expenses such as travel to medical appointments, or providing medical care to those family members who are providing support to severely injured servicemembers. This is needed legislation to continue and enhance treatment and diagnosis for traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder, by developing Centers of Excellence, establishing requirements for research, and developing a standard process for pre and post deployment screenings. The amendment will assure a fully coordinated system and it improves the medical tracking process and establishes protocols for quality assurance for deployed servicemembers. This legislation also directs a jointly integrated policy, created and administered by the Department of Defense and the Veterans' Administration, to better manage and transition servicemembers exiting active service to civilian life. It requires these two Departments to develop a joint electronic medical record by 2010. It establishes a joint DOD-VA program office that is responsible for the development, testing, and implementation of the joint health record. This will expedite the transition of servicemembers to the VA and allow for immediate and uninterrupted treatment by VA clinics and hospitals. The policies set forth in this amendment will enhance the care for the severely ill or injured by ensuring those former servicemembers who were injured between 2001 and 2012 will receive medical and dental care up to 5 years after separation from the military. These initiatives are all very much in need to better provide the support and care our dedicated servicemembers deserve, especially after putting their lives on the line.