Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 161.
July 13, 2005
View full timeline
Introduced in Senate
February 10, 2005
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1303)
February 10, 2005
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1303-1305)
February 10, 2005
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
April 14, 2005
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Stevens with amendments. With written report No. 109-102.
July 13, 2005
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 161.
July 13, 2005
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about S. 364 on the floor
DKI
JM
DKA
OJS
LEC+17
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about S. 364 on the floor
Mr. President, how much time do I have? Mr. President, before proceeding I would like to thank my leader, the Senator from Nevada, for his very generous remarks. I appreciate that very much. I rise…
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
Mr. President, before proceeding I would like to thank my leader, the Senator from Nevada, for his very generous remarks. I appreciate that very much.
I rise today in support of S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act and to address the outrageous mischaracterizations that some of my colleagues made yesterday about this measure. The law does not support their attempts to discriminate against Native Hawaiians so my colleagues had to resort to trying to confuse the issue.
This measure does not result in race discrimination. But discrimination will occur if this measure is not passed. It is undisputed that Native Hawaiians are the aboriginal, indigenous people of Hawaii. Yet some of my colleagues want to discriminate against them and treat them differently from other Native Americans--the American Indian and the Alaska Native. They seek to impose a new requirement for Congressional legislation to authorize the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government even though many of these opponents have been in Congress for years and did not impose this requirement on the other aboriginal indigenous people recognized by Congress since 1978. Do not participate in these discriminatory activities.
Congress has plenary authority over the aboriginal, indigenous people of America. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this. The Supreme Court has also acknowledged Congress' authority to recognize as an Indian tribe the aboriginal, indigenous people of America regardless of whether they are Indians, regardless of whether they are organized as a tribe, and regardless of whether they are located in territory of the United States. My colleagues who spoke against this measure yesterday know this. But none of them attempted to address these issues.
Rather, they are trying to distract us and the American people by claiming that this bill will strip Native Hawaiians of their American citizenship. My colleagues know better than this. They know that Indian tribes, however they are formed, are recognized as sovereign governments in the United States. They know that since the early 1800s the Supreme Court has called the Native governments of this land-- domestic, dependent nations. They know that the status and existence of Native governments is recognized within our form of government. But they are relying on the fact that many of our citizens are not familiar with Native American governments so that they incite fear of racial preference, denial of rights, and secession.
Although the United States of America does not recognize dual citizenship for those who come from other countries, the United States does recognize that Native Americans can be both citizens of the United States and members of their Native government. This is true even for those Native Americans located in the lower 48, whose
tribal governments were terminated in the 1950s, or whose tribal governments were restored or recognized over the last 30 or so years. This bill will lead to a similar situation for the Native Hawaiians. It is not inconsistent with what already exists in the United States.
Native Hawaiians do live as separate and distinct communities. In 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside approximately 203,500 acres of land for homesteading and agricultural use by Native Hawaiians. The Act was intended to ``rehabilitate'' the Native Hawaiian race, which was estimated to have dropped from between 400,000 and 1 million, to 38,000. At the time, prevailing Federal Indian policy was premised upon the objective of breaking up Indian reservations and allotting lands to individual Indians. Most of the homestead communities belong to an organization called the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations. The Council is composed of 24 separate Native Hawaiian Homestead Associations. These associations are distinct and separate communities of Native Hawaiians.
Aside from living on Hawaiian homelands, there are communities that are distinctly Native Hawaiian. Through Native Hawaiian social and political institutions such as the Royal Hawaiian societies which existed during the Kingdom of Hawaii as well as the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, Kamehameha Schools, and Queen Liliuokalani Children's Center, the Native Hawaiian community has maintained its distinct character as an aboriginal, native people.
Native Hawaiian culture, tradition, custom, and language has experienced a renaissance in the past 30 years. Many Native Hawaiians speak the Hawaiian language and practice the cultural practices of our kupuna, our ancestors, in health care and in education.
In another attempt to incite fear of this bill, some of my colleagues stated that this measure would lead to Hawaii seceding from the United States. Yes, a small percentage of my constituents advocate for Independence from the United States. It is an extreme view that I do not share, that the majority of Hawaii's citizens do not share, and that will not happen.
In 1959, Hawaii was admitted to become a part of the United States because the voters in the territory of Hawaii overwhelmingly voted to do so. This does not, however, erase the wrongs that were committed against this unique group of indigenous aboriginal native people. This bill does not affect Hawaii's statehood or the rights of it citizens under such statehood. This measure does, however, provide an opportunity to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government, similar to that of Alaska Native and American Indians, who are also American citizens, and it provides an opportunity to finally resolve longstanding issues that exist in Hawaii as a result of the illegal overthrow.
The United States, in enacting Public Law 103-150, the Apology Resolution, has already recognized the fact that Native Hawaiians have never given up their inherent sovereignty. Despite the fact that Hawaii was admitted as the 50th State of the Union, Native Hawaiians neither by the government or through a plebiscite or referendum gave up their rights to inherent sovereignty. The June 27, 1959, statehood plebiscite in Hawaii only asked ``Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted to the Union as a State?'' Although the statehood plebiscite did not provide other options for independence or free association, it did not dissolve an inherent right to sovereignty by the indigenous people of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians.
Native Hawaiians are Americans and will continue to be American citizens upon enactment of this measure. Like other Native Americans, Native Hawaiians have honorably and overwhelmingly served in the United States military. Like their Native American brethren, they have served in numerous wars, including, World War II, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq and remain truly essential to protecting our country. Native Hawaiians will continue to do so after enactment of this measure. Native Hawaiians are truly proud to be Americans and should be.
Yesterday, some implied that this measure would abridge the right to vote and there was an attempt to somehow link the Supreme Court's decision in Rice v. Cayetano to this matter. This holding of this case has no bearing on the measure before us and this bill does not reverse the Court's holding. In order to fully understand what this decision did and did not say, one needs to know the facts:
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is established pursuant to the Hawaii State Constitution as a State agency to administer programs for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. Prior to the Rice decision, the State limited voting for the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, to Native Hawaiians. Mr. Rice, a non-Native Hawaiian citizen of the State of Hawaii, sued the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a State agency, because he was not eligible to vote in the elections for the Board of Trustees that administers programs for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. Because the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is an arm of the State, the Supreme Court held that the State of Hawaii's denial of the right to vote in elections for the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs violated the Fifteenth Amendment guarantee of the right to vote.
That is what the Rice v. Cayetano decision held. Nothing more, nothing less.
But it appears that many of my colleagues have not read Rice. So I will take the liberty to cite from the decision so that my colleagues can fully understand that this case has no bearing on the matter before us today. Because with respect to whether or not Congress may treat Native Hawaiians as it does Indian tribes, the Court left open the possibility that Congress could treat Native Hawaiians as such. At 528 U.S. 518, the Court accurately noted that it had not yet considered whether ``Congress . . . has determined that native Hawaiians have a status like that of organized Indian tribes. . . .'' but the Court continued by specifically stating on page 519, ``We can stay far off that difficult terrain.'' The Court found it unnecessary to address whether Congress has treated Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe because it found that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is a State agency.
Although the holding of Rice is not relevant to the matter before us, the author of the State's brief is interesting, for the author is none other than recently confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts. Now Chief Justice Roberts clearly laid out the arguments as to how and why Native Hawaiians are a separate and distinct aboriginal, indigenous people who fall within Congress's plenary authority over Indian tribes. For instance, Chief Justice Roberts stated:
Congress's broad authority over Indian affairs reaches the
shores of Hawaii, too.
The Constitution gives Congress--not the courts--authority
to acknowledge and extinguish claims based on aboriginal
status.
Congress has established with Hawaiians the same type of
`unique legal relationship' that exists with respect to the
Indian tribes who enjoy the `same rights and privileges'
accorded Hawaiians. . . .
I urge all of my colleagues to read the excellent brief drafted by now Chief Justice Roberts.
Congress has repeatedly enacted laws that limit the right to vote in Native governmental elections to the members of that native government and it is consistent with the Constitution. In the 1930's, Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act and limited voting to tribal members. In the 1970's, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and limited voting to Native shareholders and their descendants. Since 1978, Congress has enacted over 20 laws that authorized the reorganization or recognition of Indian tribes and many of those laws expressly limit voting to the members of those tribes. To listen to the opponents of this measure, the bill will create a racial preference for voting in a native government and that this has never been done before. But as I just pointed out, this bill is not forging new ground. This bill is consistent with Congress's past actions and the Supreme Court has never questioned these actions.
Another matter that my colleagues try to confuse others on is the difference between reorganizing or recognizing a native government and creating a native government. No one, not even the opponents of the measure, dispute that Native Hawaiians exercised sovereignty over the lands that now
comprise Hawaii before European contact. No one disputes that there was a Native Hawaiian Kingdom. Consequently, there was a Native Hawaiian government that the United States recognized as a sovereign. Indeed, the United States even engaged in government-to-government relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is this government which will be reorganized as a domestic, dependent nation within our constitutional framework, in a manner consistent with the status of other Native Americans.
To hear the comments made yesterday, one would think that there was never a Native Hawaiian government. One of my colleagues recently attended a forum on this measure and mentioned his concern over the lack of civic education in America and the corresponding lack of knowledge about America's history. I agree with him. I urge all my colleagues to learn more about the history of Hawaii, the history of Native Hawaiians, the history of the United States, the laws enacted by Congress for the benefit of the aboriginal, indigenous people of the United States, and the laws handed down by the Supreme Court.
I am confident that once my colleagues become more informed about these matters, all will realize that enacting legislation authorizing the reorganization of a native government is within Congress authority. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this authority as recently as 2 years ago in United States v. Lara. In fact, the Court acknowledged that ``Congress has restored previously extinguished tribal status--by re- recognizing a Tribe whose tribal existence it previously had terminated.''
Once everyone obtains more education about the history and laws influencing this measure, they will realize that various history impacts the history of the United States, you will realize the difference between authorizing the reorganization of a native government and creating one out of thin air.
Claims that this bill will establish a precedent for the recognition of tribal status for Amish or Hassidic Jews or other groups are ridiculous. It is just another attempt to scare the citizens of America. Congress has the authority to recognize government-to- government relations with the aboriginal, indigenous people because of their preexisting sovereignty over the lands because of European contact. None of these other groups are preexisting sovereigns who exercised such authority.
Nor will this result in a government for the Hispanics who lived in Texas before it became a republic in 1836, or for descendants of the French citizens before the Louisiana Purchase. Again, these citizens are not aboriginal, indigenous people who exercised sovereignty before Western contact. While Congress has used its plenary authority to recognize the aboriginal, indigenous people who reside in these former territories, Congress has never attempted to recognize the non- aboriginal, non-indigenous people as a government nor will it. We are not creating a precedent here.
Finally, I want to address the letter from the Department of Justice that was sent to Majority Leader Frist last night. Last year, the Justice Department sent a longer letter outlining substantive policy concerns. Senator Akaka and I, along with Governor Lingle, engaged in extensive negotiations with administration officials to address these substantive policy concerns. The result of these negotiations are contained in the substitute amendment that Senator Akaka will he offering. There was no attempt to address the ideological concerns laid out in that letter. Therefore, Senator Akaka and I have always known that all of the Department of Justice's concerns will not be addressed in the substitute amendment.
Before anyone relies too much on the Justice Department's letter, let me point out that the letter cites to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. I urge everyone to read the Government Accountability Office report released last week that noted the Commission's recent activities are not objective nor are there procedures in place to guarantee that they are.
While the letter correctly notes that the Supreme Court believes there is considerable dispute, it fails to acknowledge that the Supreme Court could have addressed the issue in Rice v. Cayetano but instead chose to put the issue aside for another day. The letter also does not mention the extensive Supreme Court case law that recognizes that it is Congress who has the authority to recognize a government-to-government relationship with a native government, not the Courts.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on cloture so that this matter can be fully debated and everyone can be informed of the law supporting this measure. Do not fall victim to attempts to confuse this issue before us. Do not let your arm be twisted with threats that you should ignore your constituents and vote for the party line that is based on misinformation, not the law. All we are asking is that you allow an up or down vote on this measure.
Recently, the President of the United States George W. Bush submitted the name of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed by this body because of his intellectual background and primarily because of his conservative views.
Recently, Chief Justice Roberts laid out arguments as to how and why Native Hawaiians are a separate and distinct aboriginal indigenous people who fall within Congress's plenary authority over Indian tribes. Among the many things that the Chief Justice said in his brief is the following:
Congress' broad authority over Indian affairs that reaches
the shores of Hawaii too.
He went further to say:
The Constitution gives Congress--not the courts--authority
to acknowledge and extinguish claims based on aboriginal
status.
Chief Justice Roberts further stated:
Congress has established with Hawaiians the same type of
``unique legal relationships'' that exist with respect to the
Indian tribes who enjoy the ``same rights and privileges''
accorded Hawaiians . . .
I urge all of my colleagues to read this excellent brief by now Chief Justice Roberts.
Mr. President, many things have been said about what this bill will do and will not do. Some were rather outrageous, I must say. For example, it was argued that this bill will establish a precedent for the recognition of tribal status for Amish and Hasidic Jews or other groups.
I think it is just another attempt to scare our fellow Americans.
Congress has the authority to recognize government-to- government relations with aboriginal indigenous people because of their preexisting sovereignty over lands before European contact. None of the groups that have been named, such as the Amish or the Hasidic Jews, are preexisting sovereigns who exercised such authority.
While Congress has used plenary authority to recognize aboriginal indigenous people who reside in these former territories, Congress has never attempted to recognize the nonaboriginal nonindigenous people as a government, and it will not. We are not creating any precedent here.
Finally, the letter from the Department of Justice was mentioned. It was sent to our majority leader last evening.
Last year, the Justice Department sent a longer letter outlining substantive policy concerns. As a result of that letter, Senator Akaka and I, together with Governor Lingle, the Republican Governor of Hawaii, engaged in extensive negotiations and discussions for nearly 2 months with officials of the White House, the Justice Department, and OMB to address these policy concerns.
The result of these negotiations was contained in a substitute amendment identified as S. 364, which was introduced by Senator Akaka. He made a formal request that this bill be considered original text for consideration in this debate. Regretfully, that offer was rejected.
This letter from the Attorney General does not refer to S. 364, which they are well aware of because they helped us draft it. They refer to the old bill, S. 147, which we intend to substitute with S. 364.
Yes, we are aware of the shortcomings of S. 147, and we met for nearly 2 months to clarify that.
I hope my colleagues will vote yes on this cloture motion so this matter can be more fully debated and everyone can
be fully informed of the laws supporting the measure.
All we are asking for is an up-or-down vote on this measure. We just want an opportunity to debate this measure.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined with Senator Lieberman in introducing the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005. This bill is nearly identical to a proposal we offered during the 108th…
Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined with Senator Lieberman in introducing the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005. This bill is nearly identical to a proposal we offered during the 108th Congress. It is designed to begin a meaningful and shared effort among the emission-producing sectors of our country to address the world's greatest environmental challenge--climate change.
The National Academy of Sciences reported:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere
as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.
Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over
the last several decades are likely mostly due to human
activities.
Again, ``temperatures are, in fact, rising.'' Those are the words of the National Academy of Sciences, a body created by the Congress in 1863 to provide advice to the Federal Government on scientific and technical matters. These comments were written after much thoughtful deliberation and should not be taken lightly. The Academy has a 140- year history and a strong reputation of service to the people of this great country.
In October 2003, in response to the alarming changes in the climate that are being reported worldwide, we were joined by a number of other Senators in the first offering of our proposal for addressing climate change for Senate consideration. We had a hard-fought debate and found ourselves eight votes short of achieving a majority in passage. Today, we resume what we finally can consider a worthy and necessary cause.
I state at the outset that this issue is not going away. This issue is one of transcendent importance outside the boundaries of the United States of America. If you travel to Europe today and visit with our European friends, you will find that climate change/Kyoto treaty are major sources of dissatisfaction on that side of the Atlantic with the United States of America and its policies. But far more important than that, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is real, that it is happening as we speak. The Arctic and Antarctic are the ``miner's canary'' of climate change, and profound and terrible things are happening at the poles, not to mention other parts of the world.
Democracies usually respond to crises when they are faced with them and, at least in the case of this Nation, we address problems and crises that confront us and we move on. We are not very good at long- term planning and long-term addressing of issues that face us in the future. The divisions concerning the issue of Social Security are clearly an example of what I just said.
If we do not move on this issue, our children and grandchildren are going to pay an incredibly heavy price because this crisis is upon us, only we do not see its visible aspects in all of its enormity.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, assuming the stewardship of the G-8, has made it his highest priority. He has very aptly pointed out: Suppose that all of the scientific opinion is wrong; suppose that the ice that is breaking up in the Antarctic in huge chunks is just something which is temporary; suppose that the glaciers receding in the Arctic at a higher rate than at any time in history is something that is a one-time deal; suppose that the melting of the permafrost in Alaska and the Inuit villages collapsing into the ocean is a one-time thing; suppose these increases in violent climate occurrences are all something that are just temporary aberrations; suppose that happens to be true and we have acted. Then the world and the Nation will be better off because we would have developed technologies which are cleaner. We would have taken actions to reduce what everybody agrees is harmful, and that is excess greenhouse gases. And the Nation and the world would be better off.
But suppose the scientists are right. Suppose that the National Academy of Sciences report that says, ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities[ . . . ]'' is right; suppose that Dr. Robert Corell, chair of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, assessing the economic impacts and consequences of the changing Arctic, and the Arctic Council, composed of the senior officials from the eight Arctic countries that reached the conclusion that the Arctic climate is changing rapidly; that over the past 50 years, temperatures across Alaska, Canada, and much of Russia have increased 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, with winter temperatures in these areas increasing by up to 7 degrees Fahrenheit; that in the past 30 years, the Arctic has lost an area of annual average sea ice larger than all of Arizona and Texas combined, with even stronger declines observed in summer sea ice; that mountain glaciers have also receded dramatically, and the snow cover season
has been shrinking; that greenhouse gas concentration continues to rise; and even larger changes in climate are projected for the next 100 years; suppose they are right.
The observed warming is already having significant impacts on Arctic people and ecosystems. Much larger projected climate changes will result in even greater impacts on the people in the Arctic and beyond. Increasing coastal erosion threatens many Alaskan villages. Warming is also affecting the oil industry. The number of days in which oil exploration and extraction activities on the tundra are allowed under Alaska Department of Natural Resources standards has been halved over the past 30 years.
The projected changes in Arctic climate will also have global implications. Amplified global warming, rising sea levels, and potential alterations in ocean circulation patterns that can have large-scale climatic effects are among the global concerns. Melting Arctic snow and ice cause additional absorption of solar energy by the darker land surface, amplifying the warming trend at the global scale.
Recently, the Australians have predicted that the Great Barrier Reef will be dead by 2050. What is the impact of coral reefs around the world being bleached and dying on the food chain?
Dr. William Fraser, president of Polar Oceans Research Group, testified that mountain ranges flanking the southeastern boundary of the glacier, not visible 30 years ago, are emerging into full view. The amount of ice-free land along the entire southwest coast of Anver Island has been redefined by glacier retreat. Populations of the ice- avoiding Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins have increased by 55 to 90 percent.
The coral reefs are the most biologically diverse ecosystem of the ocean, as we all know. Almost 1,000 coral species currently exist. With the majority of human populations living in coastal regions, many people depend on living coral reef for food and protection from storm surges.
Dr. Lara Hansen stated:
While the Great Barrier Reef is widely considered to be one
of the best managed reef systems in the world, local
conservation actions will not be sufficient to protect coral
reefs from the effects of climate change. To date, studies
indicate that the best chance for successful conservation in
the face of climate change is to limit the temperature
increase. . . .
ADM James Watkins, who was chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, testified that climate change impacts every topic in the report from the health and safety of humans, the health of environment and fisheries to the distribution of marine organisms, including pathogens. Admiral Watkins, former Chief of Naval Operations and former Secretary of Energy, not a renowned environmentalist, went on to say climate change is a serious problem, and it could affect all of the recommendations from the report.
There will be people who will come to this floor and say that climate change is a myth; it is not serious. They will find a scientist, they will find some study group, some of them funded by people with special interests here, but I hope that we will pay attention to Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has made climate change one of the two issues he hopes to address during his presidency of the G-8. This issue I believe is very well understood by a majority of scientists in America.
I have a couple of pictures I will show. I see my colleague from Connecticut is in the Chamber.
Recently, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated that he personally believes that the world has ``already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.''
He went on to say:
Climate change is for real. We have just a small window of
opportunity, and it is closing rapidly. There is not a moment
to lose.
The International Climate Change Task Force, chaired by Senator Snowe and the Right Honorable Stephen Byers, Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom, stated in 1 of its 10 recommendations concerning climate change that ``all developed countries introduce mandatory cap- and-trade systems for carbon emissions and construct them to allow for future integration into a single global market.'' That is already being done in Europe as we speak, which is the substance of Senator Lieberman's and my legislation.
States are acting. Nine States in the East have signed on as full participants in this initiative to elevate climate mitigation strategies from voluntary initiatives to a regulatory program. The State of California has approved a new State regulation aimed at decreasing carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. The States are way ahead of us. I believe one of the reasons for that is because special interests are less active in the States.
This is a chart that shows that the CO2 data has gone up from, as we can see, 1860 to 2001.
This is a picture of the Arctic sea ice loss. The red outline is 1979. This was the Arctic sea ice, which is outlined in red. We can see the size of the Arctic sea ice today. I made a visit with some of my colleagues to the Arctic. We took a ship and stopped at where this glacier was 5 years ago, traveling a number of miles and saw where that glacier is today.
I want to emphasize again, the Arctic and the Antarctic are the miner's canary of global warming because of the thinness of the atmosphere there.
This chart is sea level changes in areas of Florida that would be inundated with a sea level rise.
I usually have--it is probably not here--I usually have a picture of Mount Kilimanjaro, which is known to many of us.
This is a chart of coral bleaching which is taking place as we speak.
If I can add a little parochialism, if I can show a picture of Lake Powell in Arizona, it has been drying up since 1999, draining Lake Powell to well below its high watermark. It is at an alltime low in its seventh year. The lake has shrunk to 10 percent of its capacity.
The signs of climate change are all around us. We need to act. We need to develop technologies and make it economically attractive for industry to find it in their interest to develop technology which will reduce and bring into check the greenhouse gas emissions in the world.
We need to do a lot of things, but a cap and trade, which would put an end to the increase of greenhouse gases and a gradual reduction, is an integral part.
Finally, I would like to return to my other argument in closing.
Suppose the Senator from Connecticut and I are deluded, that all of this scientific evidence, all these opinions, people such as Admiral Watkins in the oceans report, the National Academy of Sciences, the literally hundreds of people in the scientific community with whom Senator Lieberman and I have met and talked are wrong.
Here is the picture of Kilimanjaro in 1912, 1970, and 2000.
Suppose we are deluded, that we are tree-hugging environmentalists who have taken leave of our senses and are sounding a false alarm to the world, and we go ahead and put in a cap and trade, we encourage technologies to be developed and funded, some by the Federal Government in the form of pure research, and we do put a cap on the greenhouse gases, we negotiate an alternate Kyoto Treaty with our friends throughout the world--140 nations are signatories to the Kyoto Treaty-- and we join on the provision India and China have to be included and other provisions which we have every right to demand, and we start moving forward on this issue and we are wrong, that the year after next, everything is fine in the world? Then we will have made probably a significant contribution to the betterment of the world and the Earth by reducing greenhouse gases, by developing cleaner technologies, by doing good things, and then Senator Lieberman and I will come to the floor and apologize for sounding this alarm.
But suppose, Mr. President, that we are right. Suppose the National Academy of Sciences is right. Suppose the eight-nation research council that is deeply alarmed at these effects in both the Arctic and Antarctic is wrong; suppose Admiral Watkins is wrong; suppose the Australian Government is wrong when it says the Great Barrier Reef is going to be dead by 2050, and we have done nothing? We have done relatively nothing besides gather additional data and make reports. That is what the U.S. national policy is today: gather information and make reports. I
would argue that is a pretty heavy burden to lay on future generations of Americans.
I welcome the participation, friendship, and commitment of my friend from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article entitled ``Arid Arizona Points to Global Warming as Culprit,'' and a response to Senator Inhofe's floor statement on January 4, 2005.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Feinstein, Snowe, Durbin, Chafee, Lautenberg, Murray, Nelson, Corzine, Dayton, Cantwell, and Kerry.
Mr. President, I thank my friend, Senator Lieberman, again, and I would like to quote again from Prime Minister Blair, who announced that action on global warming will be his first priority as Chair of the G-8. He has taken a leadership role, choosing to take action and not to hide behind the uncertainties that the science community will soon resolve.
The Prime Minister made it clear in a recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos as to his intentions when he said:
. . . if America wants the rest of the world to be part of
the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda too. .
. .
It is past time for our country to show leadership in addressing the world's greatest environmental challenge, climate change.
Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to vote with me to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. I begin by expressing my deep…
Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to vote with me to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005.
I begin by expressing my deep appreciation to the cosponsors of this legislation and to the Senators who spoke in support of bringing this bill forward for debate. I especially thank the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, and the ranking member of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Dorgan, for their support.
I also thank the Senators from Alaska who shared their experiences encountered 35 years ago when Alaska
Natives sought to address similar issues when Congress enacted the Alaska Natives Claims Settlement Act.
It is ironic that the same arguments used against that bill, which has been incredibly successful and has served to unite rather than divide the people of Alaska, are being used against our efforts today to bring parity in Federal policies to Hawaii's indigenous peoples.
Beginning with the debates of the Continental Congress and continuing in the records of discussion and correspondence amongst the Framers of the Constitution, it was recognized that the aboriginal indigenous people who occupied the lands now comprising the United States had a status as sovereigns that existed prior to the formation of the United States.
Based upon the recognition of that preexisting sovereignty, the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 3, vests the Congress with authority to regulate commerce just as with foreign nations in numerous rulings of the last 215 years. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that legislation enacted to address the special concerns and conditions of the native people of the United States is constitutional and does not constitute discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity because the sovereign status of the Indian tribes is a basis for the government-to-government relationship that tribes have with the United States.
The court has consistently drawn a distinction between legislation that addresses the conditions of native people of the United States and legislation that addresses conditions of specific groups whose members are defined only by reference to their race or ethnicity.
According to the court decisions, the United States has a political and legal relationship with Indian tribes that is not predicated on race or ethnicity but, rather, on sovereignty.
The status that the Constitution recognizes in Indian tribes was later extended to Alaska Natives in their capacity as aboriginal indigenous people of the United States, and it is on that same basis that the Congress has enacted legislation for aboriginal indigenous people of Hawaii.
I know the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, is going to address this more when he speaks, but I want to comment on a disturbing conclusion that was made by some of my colleagues yesterday.
Somehow efforts to recognize Native Hawaiians are perceived as un- American. Native Hawaiians are proud--proud--to be Americans. A number of Native Hawaiians in the Hawaiian National Guard returned from Operation Iraqi Freedom this spring, after having spent 18 months away from their families. Some of our most celebrated heroes who have died in the war have been Native Hawaiians. It is offensive to me as a veteran and as a Native Hawaiian that my efforts to ensure justice and parity for Hawaii's indigenous peoples are being characterized as un- American. I beg to differ.
A federally recognized native government does not cause an indigenous person to lose his or her status as an American citizen. The concepts are not mutually exclusive. I remind my colleagues of the 556 native governments that have federally recognized government-to-government relationships with the United States. I don't see anyone characterizing our Native American brethren as being un-American. To do so in this case is another injustice to indigenous peoples, not only from Hawaii but from our great Nation.
The Senator from Tennessee, a good friend whom I admire, argued yesterday that this bill is about sovereignty. I agree, it is about sovereignty within the bounds of existing Federal law. The political and legal relationships between Native Hawaiians and the United States already exist, as evidenced by the 160 Federal statutes that have been enacted to address conditions of Native Hawaiians.
The Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination allows for a government-to-government relationship between indigenous peoples. This is not new. It exists right now between the United States and 556 native governments. The continued representation of this bill as unprecedented new action is just plain wrong.
Native Hawaiians are the indigenous aboriginal people of the lands which now comprise the State of Hawaii. Prior to their overthrow, the native government, the Kingdom of Hawaii, was recognized by the United States. The fact that the kingdom included non-natives within its government does not make it a non-native government. It is clear that the Kingdom of Hawaii was a preexisting native Government.
Hawaii is the homeland for Native Hawaiians. That is what makes them different from other ethnic groups. That is what makes them like the 556 native governments that are federally recognized and engaged in a government-to-government relationship with the United States.
This bill embodies the goals of this Nation--fairness, justice, liberty for all. A federally recognized government-to-government relationship with the United States does not make Native Hawaiians un- American. Being Native Hawaiian and American are not mutually exclusive, no more than being an American Indian or Alaska Native and being American.
Mr. President, 556 native governments enjoy this relationship. The question is: Why not Native Hawaiians? The only argument I am hearing is that Native Hawaiians are not native enough, and I beg to differ. This is why the bill needs to be brought to the floor for debate. This is why my colleagues should vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. At a minimum, it is what the people of Hawaii deserve.
My colleagues have said that Hawaii is a melting pot, perhaps the greatest melting pot in the United States, and I agree. However, I like to think of it not as a melting pot where everyone loses their individuality, but I would like to think of it as a rainbow. Each color of the rainbow represents a different culture. The more we are in touch with our culture and tradition, the brighter and more vivid is the color. Taken together, we combine to make something very beautiful.
My colleagues, however, would rather everyone be melded into one color, monotone. I believe we are intelligent, articulate beings who are able to celebrate our nationality in addition to preserving, understanding, and practicing our culture and traditions.
One of my colleagues referred to statehood and its supposed agreement that Native Hawaiians would not be treated any differently from any other citizens. Debate transcripts from the Constitutional Convention of 1950, which developed the Constitution that was used in 1959 when Hawaii became a State, clearly show an effort to protect Native Hawaiians and their culture. The 1950 Constitutional Convention adopted as a provision the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, passed by the Congress in 1921, which established a homesteading program for Native Hawaiians in an attempt to offset the tremendous decline in their numbers and to ensure continuation of their culture. The Convention also adopted a provision accepting a compact with the Federal Government to continue the trust obligation associated with the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and providing that congressional consent would be required for an amendment to decrease lessee benefits or alter lessee qualifications.
Inclusion in the Constitution as early as 1950 shows recognition of Native Hawaiians as Hawaii's indigenous peoples and reflects the widespread support for the preservation of Native Hawaiian culture, custom, and tradition. Unlike many of the other Western States' enabling laws, the Hawaii Admissions Act and the Alaska Statehood Act expressly recognized and preserved the rights of the indigenous native people in those two States. The Hawaii Admissions Act not only provides for the protection of land set aside under Federal law for Native Hawaiians but further directs that revenues from lands ceded back to the State are to be used for five purposes, one of which is the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians.
I would also like to address the report issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established to serve as an independent and bipartisan factfinding agency to investigate and report on the status of civil rights in our country. The GAO just issued a report highlighting the Commission's lack of policies to ensure that its national products--its briefings, reports, and hearings--are objective and that the Commission is sufficiently accountable for decisions made on these projects.
Take this issue, for example. In January, the Commission determined it
would hold a briefing on this legislation we are considering. The Commission failed--the Commission failed--to consult with the Hawaii State advisory committee, which is composed of experts on civil rights in Hawaii. This is not a new issue. In fact, the Hawaii State advisory committee has previously issued three reports addressing the political and legal relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. The Hawaii State advisory committee members tried to participate in the process, and their efforts were rebuffed. This was not a case of being overlooked; this was a case of being shut out by that Commission.
The Commission was provided with a substitute amendment that we negotiated with the executive branch in January by my staff. In addition, provisions of the amendment were discussed during that briefing. Yet in May of this year, when the Commission voted to issue its report, it based its decision on the bill as reported out of committee, not the bill we will actually be debating and voting upon.
In addition, the Commission's report has no analysis, no findings in it. The report is a summary of testimony made by witnesses and a conclusion that the legislation is race-based--again, no analysis, no findings.
Further, upon reviewing the transcript, it is clear to me that the majority of the Commissioners were not familiar with Hawaii's history, with Federal Indian law, or with the legislation itself at the briefing. Again, this is where the expertise of the Hawaii State advisory committee to the Commission would have been helpful, yet their efforts were rebuffed.
The two Commissioners who dissented read the bill. They read the bill. That was obvious in their dissents which actually analyze the bill and Hawaii's history.
I question such actions, as they leave me with little doubt that there are those who used this process for political reasons--to the detriment of Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the people of Hawaii. My conclusion is supported by the recent GAO report criticizing the Commission as lacking policies to ensure objectivity in its hearings and briefings and accountability in its conclusion. And they have issued that report.
In addition, on June 6, a Resolution of No Confidence was adopted by current and former State advisory committee chairpersons regarding the Commission's commitment to fulfilling statutory and regulatory obligations to the State advisory committees. This saddens me greatly, as many of us have tremendous respect for the Commission. And I repeat, we have tremendous respect for the Commission, but that respect is based on our reliance on the Commission as an independent, bipartisan, factfinding agency. There was little independence, bipartisanship, or factfinding in the Commission's consideration of this legislation. That an agency with such an important mission would succumb to a political agenda is disgraceful and offensive.
Last night, the Department of Justice issued a letter expressing opposition to S. 147. This is understandable and, of course, not surprising. The administration voiced these concerns last July. That prompted 3 months of negotiations with Hawaii's congressional delegation and Governor with the Department of Justice, Office of Management and Budget, and the White House officials. The result of those negotiations is S. 3064, which the majority leader put on the calendar this week. If the Senate invokes cloture on S. 147, the language of S. 3064 will be offered as a substitute. That language, agreed to with the administration, addresses the administration's policy concerns with the original bill.
The administration's letter of last July noted constitutional concerns with the legislation. As the floor debate yesterday demonstrated, disagreement over those constitutional questions exists and, if the legislation is enacted, would rightfully be left to the courts to decide. The substitute amendment addresses liability of the United States, ensures that military readiness is preserved, prohibits gaming, and ensures that civil and criminal jurisdiction remains with the State and Federal Governments until negotiated.
I ask my colleagues who have only had the time to listen to characterizations of the bill and sound bites of perceived impacts to actually take a look at this bill. It is not often that we can get almost every policymaker in Hawaii to agree on an issue. Except for two people in the State legislature, every other policymaker in Hawaii supports authorizing a process for the reorganization and recognition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a government- to-government relationship. We are the people who deal with this every day. I ask you, at a minimum, to give us an opportunity to share more information about this with you. Don't make your decision based on someone else's characterization of the bill if you have not taken the time to read it and understand it. The people of Hawaii--native and nonnative--deserve more than that.
I stand here and ask my colleagues to vote for cloture so that we can further address these matters. I ask all of you to give us the courtesy of at least a debate on this bill.
I have heard the opposition, and again I say that we have had good relationships which will continue, and I want to voice the reasons we need this bill because as we pledge daily, under God, with liberty and justice, we do this.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005. I am pleased to have worked with my cosponsor, Senator Kerry, in developing this bill, which will…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005. I am pleased to have worked with my cosponsor, Senator Kerry, in developing this bill, which will enable our
Nation to improve the way we manage our valuable, yet vulnerable, coastal resources.
More than three decades ago, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, or CZMA, in response to concerns over growing threats to our Nation's coastal environments and resources. While this act has been instrumental in facilitating better coastal planning and management, the September 2004 Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reminded us that the pressures facing our coastal regions have greatly increased since the CZMA was enacted.
America's coastal zone comprises only 17 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, yet nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal areas. Attracted by economic opportunity as well as beaches and other recreational amenities, more than 3,600 people are moving to this area each year. This relatively small portion of our country supports approximately 361 sea ports, including most of our largest cities. At the same time, it provides critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals, ranging from rare microscopic organisms to commercially valuable fish stocks.
The CZMA established a unique State-Federal framework for facilitating sound coastal planning, and any amendments to this act must uphold and strengthen this arrangement. Under the authorities in the CZMA, coastal States can elect to participate in a voluntary Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. The 34 participating States and territories create individualized coastal zone management plans, taking their State's specific needs and problems into account, and then receive Federal matching funds to help implement their plans. This systems respects states' rights while empowering them to better identify and meet their environmental, social, and economic goals for their coastal areas. As a result of this program's success, more than 99.9 percent of the United States 95,376 shoreline miles are managed under this system.
Even though our coastal States and territories have benefitted from this vital CZMA program, our coastal areas continue to face increasing demands to expand working waterfronts as well as increasing rates of nonpoint source water pollution. These persistent threats have outpaced the ability of many States to keep up with coastal zone conservation. Although the States are currently taking action to address this problem under existing authorities, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 would encourage them to take additional voluntary steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program.
The coastal community initiative would provide participating States with the funding and flexibility necessary to deal with a broad array of specific nonpoint source pollution problems.
The State of Maine, like many coastal States, is working to reduce nonpoint source pollution programs, and its efforts have led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine needs to do more and is looking forward to this new opportunity.
The Coastal Community Program authorized in this bill would also aide States in developing and implementing creative, community-based initiatives to deal with problems other than nonpoint source pollution. It would increase Federal and State support of local grassroots programs that target coastal environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on coastal resources and activities.
The bill I offer today would reauthorize the CZMA and make a number of improvements to strengthen our Nation's coastal management system. The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, enabling States to better achieve their coastal management goals. The bill authorizes $137.5 million for fiscal year 2006 and increases the authorization levels up to $160,000,000 for fiscal year 2010. This increase in funding would enable the States' coastal programs to achieve their full potential.
Within these authorized funding levels, this bill would increase authorization for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System to $18 million in fiscal year 2006 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2010. This system is a network of reserves around the country that support coastal science, research, education and conservation, and they are operated as a cooperative Federal-State partnership. Additional authorizations, including funds to support construction at designated reserve sites, will help strengthen this nationwide program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the addition of new reserves.
In this bill, we have tried to rectify a very serious problem facing the Coastal Zone Management Program. The funding for this program is based on administrative grants, under section 306 of the CZMA, in which the amount of funding for each State is determined by a formula that takes into account both the length of the coastline and population of each State. However, since 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a million a $2 million cap per State on administrative grants in an attempt to treat all participating States equally.
Even while overall program funding has increased in recent years, this arbitrary cap has remained in place, and by fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached it. These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population. Despite appropriators' desire for equal treatment, it is simply not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines and populations stuck at a $2 million cap, despite overall program funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an influx of funding, progress in some of the larger States--with some of the most pressing coastal management problems--has stagnated.
This bill contains new language that would direct the Secretary of Commerce to ensure equitable increases or decreases in annual administrative grant funding for each State. It further 2 requires that States should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall appropriations increase. I must thank my former colleague, Senator Hollings, for his many years of effort and cooperation in helping us develop this new grant funding allocation language. His leadership and commitment to all ocean and coastal conservation matters continues to guide our efforts today.
The State-Federal Coastal Zone Management Program has a long record of helping States achieve their coastal area management goals, and having clean, safe, and productive coastlines ultimately serves the best interest of our Nation. This program enjoys widespread support among coastal States, as demonstrated by the many Commerce Committee members who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years.
I am pleased to introduce this legislation to provide our coastal States with the funding and management frameworks necessary to meet the ever-increasing conservation and development challenges facing our coastal communities, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005, a bill that would forever change our understanding of the marine environment.
As our Nation saw with the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami only weeks ago, the oceans are alive and ever-changing. While our Nation's coast escaped the direct reach of this recent tragedy, it reminds us that those who live near or along our Nation's 95,000-plus miles of shoreline need to be able to monitor a range of ocean conditions and quickly assess ocean-based threats, including tsunamis, hurricanes, harmful algal blooms, and pollution. The purpose of this bill is to fulfil these needs for ocean and coastal observation and warning systems surrounding the United States.
This bi-partisan, science-based bill would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to establish and maintain an integrated network of ocean observing and communication systems around our Nation's coastlines. This system would collect instantaneous data and information on ocean conditions--such as temperature, wave height, wind speed, currents, dissolved oxygen, salinity, contaminants, and other variables--that are essential to marine science and resource management as well as maritime transportation, safety, and commerce.
As Chair of the Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and as a representative of a state with more than 5,000 miles of shoreline, I want to ensure that the citizens of Maine, and all coastal states, have the tools they need to monitor and assess what is happening off their shores. The State of Maine has a strong and proud history rooted in our connection to the sea, as do other coastal states, and our coastal communities are highly dependent on the fisheries resources, coastal habitats, tourist destinations, safe harbors, and other essential services connected to the sea. The people of this country's livelihoods are directly linked to how well we understand and adapt to changing ocean conditions.
Our ability to understand ocean dynamics took a great leap forward in 2001, when marine scientists and educators launched an innovative partnership known as the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or GoMOOS, to start gathering a range of ocean data on a large regional scale. This prototype system, which started with ten observation buoys, has transformed how we observe and track ocean conditions over time. The GoMOOS system takes ocean and surface condition measurements on an hourly basis through a network of linked buoys, and these real-time measurements can be monitored and accessed by the public via the GoMOOS Web site. The unprecedented geographical range and frequency of measurements revolutionized our knowledge about the Gulf of Maine, and GoMOOS continues to provide a tremendous public service for New England.
Of course, the need to access this type of ocean information is not limited to the Gulf of Maine. Similar observing systems are planned or developed in other coastal regions, many in conjunction with NOAA, universities, and State agencies. Data from these independent regional systems, however, are often incompatible with data from other regions, making it difficult to compile, manage, process, and communicate data across networks. As a result, there is a possibility that these systems would be unable to link their data and develop a comprehensive picture of coastal and ocean conditions around the Nation.
The Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005 seeks to rectify this situation by integrating ocean and coastal observation efforts in cooperation with NOAA. This Act would encourage further development of the regional systems, enable their data to be linked through a national network, provide information that anyone could access, and facilitate timely public warnings of hazardous ocean conditions. It would authorize the National Ocean Research Leadership Council to have general oversight for research and
development of this national undertaking. This Council would establish an interagency program office that would plan and coordinate operational activities and budgets, and NOAA would be the lead Federal agency charged with ensuring that this national network of regional observation associations, such as GoMOOS and others under development, effectively integrates and utilizes ocean data for the benefit of the American public.
As the U.S. Ocean Commission made clear in its final report issued in September 2004, ocean and coastal observations are a cornerstone of sound marine science, management, and commerce, and the potential uses of this system are nearly unlimited. For example, fisheries scientists and managers can use ocean data to better predict ocean productivity and use this information to facilitate ecosystem management. Fishermen, sailors, shippers, Coast Guard search-and-rescue units, and other seafarers can better monitor sea conditions to more safely navigate rough seas. Ocean scientists and regulators can better predict and respond to marine pollution, harmful algal bloom outbreaks, or other hazardous conditions and issue prompt alerts to potentially vulnerable communities. Clearly, anyone who uses and depends upon the ocean stands to benefit from this integrated system.
I am very proud to introduce this bill, and I would like to thank my cosponsors, Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Inouye, for contributing to this legislation and supporting this national initiative. Of course, our current and expanding ocean observation and communication system would not be possible without the work of dedicated professionals in the ocean and coastal science, management, and research communities-- they have taken the initiative to develop the grassroots regional observation systems as well as contribute to this legislation. Thanks to their ongoing efforts, ocean observations will continue to provide a tremendous service to the American ocean-dependent public.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I have introduced what I believe to be a very important piece of legislation that the Senate will consider this year, dealing with an issue that is certainly on the minds of many…
Mr. President, I have introduced what I believe to be a very important piece of legislation that the Senate will consider this year, dealing with an issue that is certainly on the minds of many Americans and No. 1 on the minds of some Americans. It is on the question of immigration reform and dealing with it in an appropriate fashion, to create a transparency in the process, and to begin to end and identify the 8 million to 12 million undocumented foreign nationals currently in our country.
Over the last 5 years, I have worked in a bipartisan way with many of my colleagues, and literally hundreds of organizations around the country, in focusing on a specific area of immigration, and that is the H-2A area, or those who work in agricultural employment.
What we have discovered over the course of time is a broken system, which in large part now allows the possibility of well over a million foreign nationals working illegally in this country, but working in an economy where they are desperately needed to bring the food products from our fields, to process those products and put them on the shelves of the American consuming public. As a result of that great concern, I, working with my colleague Senator Ted Kennedy in the Senate, with Congressman Howard Berman and Congressman Chris Cannon over in the House for some time, have produced legislation that brings all sides of this very diverse and oftentimes very contentious issue together, to therefore be able to offer tonight a piece of legislation that has at this moment nearly 40 Members of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, supporting it; whereas last year, identical legislation had over 63 Senators, and we believe we will have that same support again this year.
Americans, after 9/11, cried out to the Congress and to our Government, saying: What is wrong? Why were people allowed to come to our country who then turned on us to kill our citizens? Why did we let that happen?
Well, we learned that the immigration policies of our country were largely broken and that the Congress, over years and years, had turned its back on the issue, either not funding immigration appropriately or not enforcing the laws already on the books regarding immigration.
As a result of that, it is now estimated that there are between 8 million to 12 million foreign nationals living in this country, the vast majority of them working and living in law-abiding, peaceful ways, but working here to better themselves and their families for their own human well-being. We did find out there were a few who were here to do evil things to Americans.
In the legislation I bring to the floor tonight, in legislation we call the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefit and Security Act, I focus rather narrowly on what is believed to be about 1.6 million of the total number, to recognize that clearly the vast majority of them are here for peaceful purposes, to better themselves and their families, and, in the meantime, cause American agriculture to work as effectively and efficiently as it does.
Oftentimes, these men and women do work that American citizens do not want to do or will not do--toiling in the hot fields of American agriculture day in and day out, dirty, tough work, but seeing it as an opportunity for themselves and an opportunity for their children to have a better life.
In so failing to recognize that need, we have oftentimes caused them to live in the back alleys and the shadows of America in an illegal status, but we still rely heavily on them for the services they provide.
Americans need and expect a stable, predictable, legal workforce in American agriculture, and consumers in our country deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply. Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in line for the jobs that are available with a fair market wage, and our legislation does that. All workers deserve decent treatment and protection of basic rights under the law, and our legislation does that. American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders, a safe homeland, and a government that works, and our legislation helps accomplish those three very important goals.
Yet we are threatened on all fronts because of a growing shortage now of legal workers in American agriculture. Last year, in 2 of the 12 months, we were net importers of agricultural food products. For the first time in the history of our country that happened. I grew up being told--and most of us did--that because of our great American agriculture always being able to feed us, we were a secure, safe nation, and our food supply was such that we would never be dependent upon foreign interests to feed the American consumer.
Last year it happened 2 out of 12 months that we grew dependent. This year, USDA tells us that we will break even at about 50-50. There will be no surplus agriculture trade. We will be importing as much as we are exporting, and that will be a historic first for our Nation.
What it tells me, as someone who grew up in American agriculture, is that agriculture as an economy is becoming increasingly fragile. It no longer has the strength or the dynamics it once had. It grows increasingly dependent on the high cost of inputs--energy, equipment, other supplies necessary to produce the bounty of the American farm field. But one of those key inputs is labor--labor that is stable, labor that you know will be there, and, most importantly, labor that can get the job done at the right time,
when the crop in the field is ripe and ready to harvest.
That labor pool is largely undocumented today. It is estimated that anywhere from 72 to 75 percent of those who work in American agriculture today are undocumented foreign nationals; in other words, illegal. And yet they toil in the fields, they pick our food, they help prepare it through the processing plants to get it to the consumer's shelf.
If in our effort to protect our borders and to create a law enforcement community that can apprehend a person who has entered this country illegally, if all of that happens and we do not create a system that stabilizes and provides a legal foreign national workforce, we could literally collapse American agriculture.
We are working at trying to protect our borders. We have invested heavily in it for the last good number of years. We just passed an intelligence reform bill in the latter part of the last session of the 108th Congress dealing closely with our borders. Members on the House side are ready to introduce new forms of legislation to tighten up and allow the driver's license to become a more secure legal documentation--an American citizen versus one who would not be.
I support nearly all of those things because they are the right thing to do for America to reclaim herself and to control her borders. But at the same time, there is a legitimate and responsible need to recognize the importance--the critical importance--of foreign nationals in our workforce helping to provide for our economy.
In the late nineties, we were near 100-percent employment in our country. Anyone who wanted to work could work and was working. Those who were not probably either did not want to or could not. Yet during that time, we were still employing an estimated 8 million foreign nationals in our country. That is not a negative, that is the character of a great country. That is the character of a great economy and a strong economy.
It is also that diversity that has produced the great American way, the idea of the American dream, the phenomenal hybrid vigor of a diverse character that is this country and has always been. And American agriculture has been a part of that. Those who toil in American agriculture have been a big part of that.
What we do today by this legislation is reach out and attempt to recognize those who are here in an undocumented way and cause them to come forward to be recognized, to have a background check done, to make sure they are not law violators or felons who are here for some other purpose. If they have been here and worked a period of 100 days since January 1, 2005, we will provide for them a temporary green card and then allow them to work and earn the right for permanent work status in our country.
To me, that seems fair and responsible. All of the parties involved in American agriculture today from the workforce to the producer themselves, they, too, agree that is a fair and responsible fashion. It is not giving anything away. It is attempting to correct a problem. It is doing the background checks. It is making sure we have a legal and legitimate workforce so that as we plug all of these holes and change the character of a broken immigration law, we do so without collapsing the very economy that feeds our country, recognizing that they became too dependent as agricultural producers on a workforce that was not legal.
So we do not just wipe the workforce away. We attempt to identify it, shape it, and cause it to be legal and do so in a responsible fashion. That is clearly what our legislation does. That is why 63 Senators supported it last year, and well over 100 in the House were cosponsors of it. We are working hard at this very moment to pass this legislation, to get it to the President's desk, and recognize that it may be a template, it may be a pilot for others to look at for a more comprehensive approach toward immigration reform.
There is no question in my mind that our immigration laws are broken, and I am not going to stand here tonight and suggest I have the wisdom to fix it all. But I and others and hundreds of organizations and interest groups from around this country have spent the last 5 years trying to solve this problem.
When we started, many of us were 180 degrees apart. Slowly but surely we came together out of need, the clear recognition of the necessity of providing a legal, recognizable, and stable workforce for American agriculture.
I do not think any citizen in our country would sleep well if they knew that a majority of our foodstuffs were imported, if they knew that we were dependent upon foreign nations and their producers for our food supply.
I think they would grow frustrated over the risk that would be at hand there, the stability, the availability, the safety issue. Many have suggested that if we are going to have a terrorist attack again some day, one of the approaches terrorists might use would be to attack our food supply.
If we control our workforce, if we produce it here, the possibility of that happening is considerably lessened. That goes right back to the old historic belief that a nation that can feed itself and its people is a nation that is inherently stable, and without question the produce of the American farm has allowed us to be that generation after generation, war after war.
We are now at a very fine point and balance in our Nation's history where this year we will zero out that old historic belief of stability. We will be importing as much as we are exporting. So American agriculture deserves our attention.
The people who labor there deserve our attention and respect. They deserve to be treated fairly as we would expect all people in our country to be, to have proper conditions and proper wages and to be recognized for the quality of work they do, instead of simply shoving them into the shadows in the back streets of America and denying they are there but knowing that we need them. That is an interesting contradiction in the current immigration laws in our country and America knows it and has reacted accordingly.
It is why our President says immigration reform is critical and necessary and has proposed ways to accomplish it. It is why it is in the top list of issues and concerns that most Americans hold about what Government ought to be doing to create a safer, stronger America, from controlling our borders to an effective law enforcement system, to assuring that we know those who are within our borders and why they are here and what their intent is. That is all part of the agricultural jobs bill we introduce tonight, the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefit and Security Act of 2005.
I am proud that 40 Senators, nearly 50-50 in partisan split, have already endorsed this legislation. We will strive for that number of 60-plus again. In doing so, I will ask my colleagues to help us bring this bill to the floor very early in this session, to debate it, to pass it out, to work with our House colleagues and to put it on the President's desk. I believe it is a positive and necessary start in marching down the road toward comprehensive immigration reform.
To do anything less than we are proposing is once again to do the very thing we have done for well over a decade, and that is to turn our back on the problem and the issue, to know it is there but to deny it exists, and then to have a broken system produce the crisis that occurred on 9/11.
We are a better country than that, and this Senate is a more responsible legislative body than that.
So tonight I bring to my colleagues what I think is a major first step in immigration reform necessary and important to protecting our borders, to making sure we are secure at home, to stabilizing a food supply, to assuring that American agriculture has a predictable, stable workforce, and to say to all at hand that those who come here to toil, in the benefit of the American economy, will be treated in a fair, just, and responsible way.
I yield the floor.
Show 8 more
Mr. President, the recent shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for ernporary or seasonal non-agricultural foreign workers is a matter of great concern to many small businesses in my home state of…
Mr. President, the recent shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for ernporary or seasonal non-agricultural foreign workers is a matter of great concern to many small businesses in my home state of Maine, particularly those in the hospitality sector that rely on these seasonal workers to supplement their local employees during the height of the tourism season.
On January 4, a mere three months into fiscal year 2005, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, announced that it would immediately stop accepting applications for H-2B visas because the annual statutory cap of 66,000 visas had been met. In other words, many employers who require temporary workers in the spring, summer, or fall will be unable to hire such workers because all 66,000 H-2B visas already will have been issued within the first few months of the fiscal year. Once again, Maine's employers will be left out in the cold, disadvantaged by the simple fact of their later tourism season.
Without these visas, employers will be unable to hire enough workers to keep their businesses running at normal levels. Last year, unable to locate enough American workers willing and able to take these jobs, and without temporary foreign workers to fill the gap, many business owners were forced to initiate stop-gap measures that were neither ideal nor sustainable in the long term. Many of these businesses fear that, this year, they will have to decrease their hours of operation during what is their busiest time of year. This would translate into lost jobs for American workers, lost income for American businesses, and lost tax revenue from those businesses. These losses will be significant, and they can be avoided.
Today, I am pleased to join Senators Mikulski and Gregg, along with several other of my distinguished colleagues, in introducing the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005. Similar to legislation that I cosponsored last year, as well as legislation that I have introduced in the current Congress, this bill would exclude from the cap returning workers who were counted against the cap within the past 3 years. This legislation also seeks to address the inequities in the current system by limiting the number of H-2B visas that can be issued in the first 6 months of the fiscal year to no more than 33,000 visas, or one half of the total number of visas available under the cap. By allocating visas equally between each half of the year, employers across the country, operating both in the winter and summer seasons, will have a fair and equal Opportunity to hire these much-needed workers.
In addition, this legislation includes important new anti-fraud provisions that will strengthen our ability to detect, prevent, and deter, fraud by those who would seek to abuse the H-2B program. These include sanctions for employers who are found to have misrepresented II If facts on an H-2B petition, and the creation of a Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee of $150 for each H-2B petition. Similar to anti-fraud fees charged in other visa categories, funds raised from this fee will be placed in an account with the U.S. Treasury and made available to the agencies involved in processing H-2B visas--CIS, the Department of Labor, and the Department of State--to educate and train employees to recognize and protect against fraud in the visa applicant process.
I believe that this anti-fraud fee serves a worthy goal, and that the government agencies should have the resources they need to ensure the integrity of the H-2B visa application process. However, I am concerned about the impact that a fee of this size, in addition to the filing fees that employers already pay, may have on many smaller businesses. I intend to examine this issue further in order to ensure that smaller businesses are not unfairly impacted by this provision.
We must act quickly on this legislation, or we will be too late to help thousands of American businesses that need our help now. We cannot be content to say: ``It's too late for this year; maybe next year.'' It is true that comprehensive, long-term solutions may be necessary, but we have immediate needs as well. This problem demands immediate solutions.
In my home state of Maine, the economic impact of this visa shortage will be harmful and widespread. When people think of Maine, what often comes to mind is its rugged coastline, picturesque towns and villages, and its abundant lakes and forests. Not surprisingly, tourism is the state's largest industry. Temporary and seasonal workers play an important role in this very important industry.
Unfortunately, there are not enough American workers willing and able to fill the thousands of jobs necessary to provide the level of service that Maine's visitors have come to expect. Over the years, seasonal workers have filled this gap, becoming an integral part of Maine's tourism and hospitality industry. In Fiscal Year 2003, the last time Maine's employers were able to fully utilize the H-2B program, Maine employed more than 3,000 seasonal workers. The majority of these individuals worked in the State's resorts, inns, hotels, and restaurants. Many are people who have returned to the same employer summer after summer.
Let me emphasize that employers are not permitted to hire these foreign workers unless they can prove that they have tried, and failed, to locate available and qualified American workers through advertising and other means. As a safeguard, current regulations require the U.S. Department of Labor to certify that such efforts have occurred before CIS will process the visa applications. In Maine, as in other States, our state Department of Labor takes the lead in ensuring that employers have taken sufficient steps to try to find local workers to fill the positions. Unless and until more H-2B visas are made available, many seasonal jobs will remain unfilled and American businesses will suffer.
A similar situation faces Maine's forest products industry, which contributes approximately $5.6 billion annually to Maine's economy. In 2003, more than 600 temporary workers--mostly from Canada--were employed as forestry workers in Maine. Many work in remote areas of the state where there are not enough Americans able to take these jobs. By some estimates, these foreign workers account for as much as 30-40 percent of the wood fiber that supplies paper and saw mills throughout Maine and the Northeast. This number represents roughly 4.8 million tons of wood annually. With an already significant shortage in the wood supply, the loss of these temporary workers poses a serious threat to the industry and to Maine's economy. With fewer workers available to bring wood out of the forest and into mills, supplies will dwindle, prices will continue to rise, and mills may be forced to curtail production, or even temporarily discontinue operations. If this happens, it is American workers that may lose their jobs.
The effects of the H-2B visa shortage are not limited to the tourism and forest products industries, however. It will also be felt by fisheries and lobstermen, junior league hockey and minor league baseball teams. It win affect small businesses and large, visitors and locals, young and old, from Maine to Maryland, to Wyoming and Alaska.
Mr. President, the shortage of nonimmigrant temporary or seasonal worker visas is a problem that must be addressed, and soon. I believe that this legislation offers a workable short-term solution, and I urge us to move forward. We must resist the tendency to let this problem, and the people who are affected by it, become entangled in the larger debate about our Nation's
immigration policies. This is not about the number of immigrants we should allow to come to the United States each year, or what to do with those who violate our immigration laws. It is about temporary workers who, for the most part, respect our laws, go home at the end of their authorized stay, and in many cases, return again next year to provide services that benefit our Nation's economy. It is about American businesses that rely on these workers to take jobs that many Americans do not want. It is about the economic impact that will be felt across the Nation if these businesses are unable to hire temporary workers. We need to solve this problem now, before it is too late and our economy is harmed and jobs lost.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act being introduced by Senator Mikulski today. This legislation offers a measured approach to provide needed relief to the many small businesses that have been struggling to find enough employees to operate during seasonal spikes in workload. Small businesses that are seasonal often need a large number of employees for a short portion of the year, but cannot afford to retain the same number of people as full-time, year-round employees. They instead must rely on temporary workers to fill the gap in their high season. In my home State of Maryland, for example, our seafood processors are busy in the summer and early fall, but have very little work in the winter. To accommodate this changing need, they hire college students and local residents as extra workers in the summer. But even with those workers they often find themselves short-staffed. So they turn to temporary employees who are willing to leave their home countries for a few months to come to the U.S. and work.
Specifically, the bill being introduced today will allow anyone who has had an H-2B visa for one of the last 3 years to return this summer or next if an employer petitions for them to do so. Importantly, employers still must demonstrate that they have tried and failed to find available, qualified U.S. citizens to fill these jobs before they file an H-2B visa application. In addition, the bill would ensure that our summer employers are not disadvantaged by allowing no more than half of the 66,000 visas to be allocated in the first half of the year. Finally, the bill imposes antifraud fees on employers who willfully misrepresent any statement on their H-2B petition and requires the Department of Homeland Security to file reports on the demographics of those utilizing the H-2B program.
Any changes to our immigration laws must balance the interests of U.S. citizens and our economy while providing a fair, legal framework for those seeking to come to our Nation from other countries. For example, our current immigration laws already contain several general reasons an alien seeking admission into the United States may be denied entry: security and terrorist concerns, health-related grounds, criminal history, public charge, i.e., indigence, seeking to work without proper labor certification, illegal entry and/or immigration law violations, lack of proper documents, ineligibility for citizenship, and previous removal. Ensuring the safety of our country requires preserving these categories.
This legislation would leave this existing framework intact. It simply provides a fair and equitable means of distributing a very scarce number of visas so that all employers who require extra assistance during one season of the year may obtain that assistance. We must resist the temptation to let the H-2B situation and the small businesses affected by it become entangled in the larger debate over immigration reform. Workers who use H-2B visas come to the U.S. for a temporary period of time and are required to leave when that time period has run. These workers respect our laws, work hard, provide services that benefit our economy, and then return to their families at the end of the season. For their sake and that of the small, seasonal businesses that rely on them, we need to resolve this H-2B crisis soon.
Without this fix, our seafood processors cannot operate at full capacity. That becomes a problem for the rest of the seafood industry, including our watermen, who will be forced to curtail their fishing because of an insufficient number of locations to process their catches. In the end, the people who suffer are not the seafood processors or the temporary workers but the watermen who cannot feed their families. This bill provides the assistance necessary to keep our watermen, seafood processors, and a number of other industries such as landscapers, pool operators, and summer camps working at full capacity this summer. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. From the shore, our oceans seem vast and limitless, but I fear that we often overlook the impacts our actions have…
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. From the shore, our oceans seem vast and limitless, but I fear that we often overlook the impacts our actions have on the sea and its resources. The Act that I am introducing today with my friends and colleagues, Senators Stevens, Cantwell, Snowe, Kerry, and Lautenberg, focuses on one particular impact that goes unnoticed by many: marine debris. I am proud to say that the Senate unanimously passed this bill in the 108th Congress, and we look for swift action on this legislation again this year.
In a high-tech era of radiation, carcinogenic chemicals, and human- induced climate change, the problem of the trash produced by ocean- going vessels or litter swept out to sea must seem old-fashioned by comparison. Sea garbage would seem to be a simple issue that surely cannot rise to the priority level of the stresses our 21st century civilization places on the natural environment.
Regrettably, that perception is wrong. While marine debris includes conventional ``trash,'' it also includes a vast array of additional materials. It is discarded or lost fishing gear. It is cargo washed overboard. It is abandoned equipment from our commercial fleets. Nor does the ``low-tech'' nature of solid refuse diminish its deadly impact on the creatures of the sea. Whether an animal dies from a immune system weakened by toxic chemicals, or drowns entangled in a discarded fishing net, the result is the same--and in many cases, preventable.
Global warming, disease, and toxic contamination of our seas has already stressed these fragile ecosystems. These threats have been described in last year's Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which also dedicated an entire chapter to the threats posed by marine debris. The bill we introduce today adopts the measures recommended by the Commission to help remove man-made marine debris from the list of ocean threats. It also follows the recommendations of the International Marine Debris Conference held in my home State of Hawaii in 2000.
The bill establishes a Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, directs the U.S. Coast Guard to improve enforcement of laws designed to prevent ship-based pollution from plastics and other garbage, reinvigorates an interagency committee on marine debris, and improves our research and information on marine debris sources, threats, and prevention.
In Hawaii, we are able to see the impacts of marine debris more clearly than most because of the convergence caused by the North Pacific Tropical High. Atmospheric forces cause ocean surface currents to converge on Hawaii, bringing with them the vast amount of debris floating throughout the Pacific. Since 1996, a total of 484 tons of debris have been removed from coral reefs in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which is also home to many endangered marine species. But the job is not done, because more arrives daily. In 2004 alone, the program removed over 125 tons of debris.
I am pleased that the coordinated approach taken to address the threats posed by marine debris in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands has provided a model for the nation. NOAA's Pacific Islands Region Fisheries Science Center is leading this interagency partnership, which also includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaii's business and university communities, and conservation groups. Not only have we removed debris that poses harm to endangered species, but with the help of donated services, we have recycled the abandoned nets into energy to power residential homes.
We have learned that our best path to success lies in partnering with one another to share resources, and it is my hope that others may adapt our project to their own shores through the partnership and funding opportunities set forth in this bill. This is why the bill strengthens and reestablishes an Interagency Committee on Marine Debris to coordinate marine debris prevention and removal efforts among federal agencies state governments, universities, and nongovernmental organizations.
We must also bear in mind that no matter how zealously we reform our practices, the ultimate solution lies in international cooperation. The oceans connect the coastal nations of the world, and we must work together to reduce this increasing threat to our seas and shores. The Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act will provide he United States with the tools to develop effective marine debris prevention and removal programs on a worldwide basis, including reporting and information requirements that will assist in the creation of an international marine debris database.
Mr. President, I hope you will join me in supporting enactment of the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. This bill will provide the United States with the programs and resources necessary to protect our most valuable resources, our oceans. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Ballast Water Management Act of 2005. I am joined by my friend and colleague, Senator Ted Stevens. For some time we have recognized the impacts of land-based invasive species. In Hawaii, the impacts of such alien species on native species have been among the most significant in the country.
While not as visible, invasive species pose an equally great threat. One of the major ways that aquatic invasives make their way around the globe is through the ballast water used by vessels.
Modern maritime commerce depends on ships stabilized by the uptake and discharge of huge volumes of ocean water for ballast. Regrettably, ships do not transport such water alone--but also the plants and animals, as well as human diseases such as cholera, that it contains. An estimated 10,000 aquatic organisms travel around the globe each day in the ballast water of cargo vessels. Over 2 billion gallons of ballast water are discharged into waters of the United States each year.
From the zebra mussel fouling the facilities and shores of the Great Lakes, to the noxious algae that choke the coral reefs of Hawaii, aquatic invasive species pose a serious threat to delicate marine ecosystems and human health. The economic costs are also staggering-- the direct and indirect costs of
aquatic invasive species to the economy of the United States amount to billions of dollars each year.
We must find an effective solution to this problem, while at the same time ensuring that our maritime industry can continue to operate in a cost-effective manner. We will need to rely on the steady collaborative efforts of industry, science, government, and coastal communities as we move forward.
The bill I introduce today lays the foundation for such progress. It establishes standards for ballast water treatment that will be effective but on a schedule that our maritime fleet can realistically achieve. It recognizes safety as a paramount concern, and allows flexibility in ballast exchange practices to safeguard vessels and their passengers and crew. Looking to the future, my bill will also encourage the development and adoption of new ballast water treatment technologies, as well as innovative technologies to address other vessel sources of invasives such as hull fouling, through a grant program.
The bill closely tracks and is consistent with an agreement recently negotiated in the International Maritime Organization. It would phase- in ballast water treatment requirements on the same schedule as that adopted by the IMO agreement, and require ballast water exchange to be used until treatment systems are in place. Importantly, the international agreement includes a provision assuring that parties can adopt more stringent measures than those included in the agreement. This provision was sought by the United States and is important to assure the sovereignty of nations in addressing their needs while striving for international cooperation. In light of this provision, the bill includes a standard for treatment that is more effective than that adopted by the international community to ensure that the impacts in the United States are adequately prevented.
Finally, the bill would require a report on other vessel pathways of invasive species, including hull fouling, and the development of standards to reduce the introduction of invasive species through such pathways. This issue is particularly important for Hawaii.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act, and I am pleased to be joined by my Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator Stevens, and fellow Committee members Senators Lott, Cantwell, Snowe, Kerry, and Lautenberg, who are all original cosponsors of the bill. I am pleased to report that the Senate passed this bill unanimously in the 108th Congress, and we look forward to moving this legislation quickly this year, particularly because of its importance to coastal planning for natural hazards such as tsunami.
The jurisdiction of the United States extends 200 miles beyond its coastline and includes the U.S. Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone, or ``EEZ.'' Regrettably, nearly 90 percent of this expanse remains unmapped by modern technologies, meaning that we have almost no information about a swath of ocean as large as the terra firma of the entire United States.
There was a time in the history of our Nation when our best efforts to map the seas meant lowering weights tied to piano wire over the side of a vessel, and measuring how deep they went. These efforts led to the development of rudimentary nautical charts designed to help mariners navigate safely. The rapidly increasing uses of our coastal and ocean waters, however, call for development of a new generation of ecosystem- oriented mapping and assessment products and services.
The technologies of today create richly layered mapping products that expand far beyond just charting for safe navigation. Now, by combining such information as mineral surveys of the U.S. Geological Service, habitat characterizations of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration NOAA, and watershed assessments of the Environmental Protection Agency into a single product, map users are able to consider the impacts of their actions on multiple facets of the marine environment.
Last year, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued a report highlighting the urgent need to modernize, improve, expand, and integrate federal mapping efforts to improve navigation, safety and resource management decisionmaking. By employing integrated mapping approaches, urban and residential growth can be directed away from areas of high risk from ocean-based threats such as tsunami and tidal surge. The risks of maritime activities can be minimized by identifying hazards that could impact on sensitive ecosystems, and devising appropriate mitigation plans. Living marine resource managers can also gauge where and how best to focus their efforts to restore essential marine habitats.
The bill we are introducing today will lay the foundation for producing the ocean maps of the 21st century. It mandates coordination among the many federal agencies with mapping missions with NOAA as the lead in developing national mapping priorities and strategies. The bill would also establish national hydrographic centers to manage comprehensively the mapping data produced by the federal government, encourage innovation in technologies, and authorize the funding necessary to implement this comprehensive effort.
Perhaps the most important lesson that comprehensive, integrated mapping can afford is an awareness of a web of human marine communities as rich and varied as the ocean itself. From awareness grows understanding, respect, and cooperation.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure that will, in turn, support the development of healthy coastal communities across the nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to continue the fight to right a wrong in America's visa program. I believe it's time for America to extend the Visa Waiver program to Poland. I'm pleased to have formed a…
Mr. President, I rise today to continue the fight to right a wrong in America's visa program. I believe it's time for America to extend the Visa Waiver program to Poland. I'm pleased to have formed a bipartisan partnership with Senator Santorum to reintroduce our bill to get it done.
Last fall, Senator Santorum and I met with a hero of the Cold War, Lech Walesa. When he jumped over the wall of the Gdansk shipyard, he took Poland and the whole world with him. He told us that the visa issue is a question of honor for Poland. That day, we introduced a bill to once again stand in solidarity with the father of Solidarity by extending the Visa Waiver program to Poland.
This morning, I had the honor of hosting Poland's Foreign Minister, Professor Adam Rotfeld. We reaffirmed and cemented the close ties between the Polish and American peoples. Senator Santorum and I heard loud and clear that the visa waiver program remains a high priority for Poland.
My friends, Poland is not some Communist holdover or third-world country begging for a handout. The Cold War is over. Poland is a free and democratic nation. Poland is a NATO ally and a member of the European Union. But America's visa policy still treats Poland as a second-class citizen. That is just wrong.
Poland is a reliable ally, not just by treaty but in deeds. Warsaw hosted an international Conference on Combating Terrorism less than two months after the September 11 attacks. Poland continues to modernize its Armed Forces so they can operate with the Armed Forces of the U.S. and other NATO allies, buying American F-16s and Shadow UAVs and humvees.
More importantly, Polish troops have stood side by side with America's Armed Forces. Polish ships participated in Desert Shield and Desert Storm during the 1990-91 Gulf War. Poland sent troops to Bosnia as part of UNPROFOR and IFOR. Poland sent troops as part of the international coalition in Afghanistan.
Polish troops fought alongside American and British and Australian troops from day one of the Iraq war. They are there because they want to be reliable allies. Because they are ready to stand with us even when the mission is risky and unpopular. Today, Poland still commands multinational forces in the South Central region of Iraq. Nearly 2,500 Polish troops are still on the ground in Iraq, sharing the burden and the risk and the casualties.
So why are Singapore and San Marino among the 27 countries in the Visa Waiver program, but Poland is not?
President Kwasniewski raised this issue with President Bush last year and again this week. The President has said this is a matter for Congress. It's time for us to act.
The bill Senator Santorum and I are introducing today will add Poland to the list of designated countries in the Visa Waiver program. That will allow Polish citizens to travel to the U.S. for tourism or business for up to sixty days without needing to stand in line to get a visa. That means it will be easier for Poles to visit family and friends or do business in America. Shouldn't we make it easier for the Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos and Marie Curies of today to visit our country?
We know that our borders will be no less secure because of these Polish visitors to our country. But we know that our alliance will be more secure because of this legislation.
I urge our colleagues to join us in support of this important bill.
Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that is desperately needed by small and seasonal businesses all over the Nation. These businesses are in crisis. They need seasonal workers before the summer so that they can survive. For many years they have relied on the H2B Visa program to meet these needs, but this year they can't get the temporary labor they need because they have been shut out of the H-2B visa program. That program lets them hire temporary foreign workers when no American workers are available.
So today, I join with my colleague Senator Gregg to introduce legislation that provides a quick fix to the H-2B problem. The ``Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act'' will help these employers by doing three things--temporarily exempting good actor workers from the H-2B cap, protecting against fraud in the H-2B program and providing a fair and balanced allocation system for H-2B visas. I urge my colleagues to work with us to pass this legislation quickly to save these businesses and the thousands of American jobs they provide.
Many in this body know about the H-2B crisis. All this week we have been talking about the litigation crisis--but a real crisis to thousands of small and seasonal businesses is the worker shortage they face as they approach the summer season. These small businesses count on the H-2B Visa Program to keep their businesses afloat. And this year, because the cap of 66,000 was reached so early in the year, many of these businesses will be unable to get the seasonal workers that they need to survive.
Hitting the cap so early has had a great impact on Maryland. We have a lot of summer seasonal businesses in Maryland, on the Eastern Shore, in Ocean City or working the Chesapeake Bay. Many of our businesses use the program year after year. They hire all the American workers they can find, but they need additional help to meet seasonal demands. Because the cap was reached so early this year, for the second year in a row, summer employers face a disadvantage. They can't use the program, so they can't meet their seasonal needs and many will be forced to limit services, lay-off permanent U.S. workers or, worse yet, close their doors.
These are family businesses and small businesses in small communities in Maryland. If the business suffers the whole community suffers. For seafood companies like J.M. Clayton, what they do is more than a business, it's a way of life. Started over a century ago and run by the great grandsons of the founder, J.M. Clayton works the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, supplying crabs, crabmeat and other seafood, including Maryland's famous oysters, to restaurants, markets, and wholesalers allover the Nation. It is the oldest working crab processing plant in the world and by employing 65 H-2B workers the company can retain over 30 full-time American workers.
But its not just seafood companies that have a long history on the Eastern Shore. It's companies like S.E.W. Friel Cannery, which began its business over 100 years ago when there were 300 canneries on the Eastern Shore. But now those others are gone and Friel's is the last corn cannery left. Ten years ago, when the cannery could not find local workers, it turned to the new H-2B Visa Program. It has used the program every year since, and many workers are repeat users who come each year and then go home after the season. What's important is that having this help each year has not only allowed the company to maintain its American workforce, but it has paved the way for local workers to return to the cannery. They now employ 75 full time and 190 seasonal workers, along with 70 farmers and additional suppliers.
Now these employers can't just turn to the H-2B program whenever they want seasonal workers. First, employers must try to vigorously recruit U.S. workers. They must demonstrate to the Department of Labor that there are no U.S. workers available. Only after that are they allowed to fill seasonal vacancies with H-2B visa workers. The workers that they bring in often participate in the H-2B program year after year. They often work for the same companies. But they cannot and do not stay in the U.S. They return to their home countries, to their families and their U.S. employer must go through the whole visa process again the following year to get them back. That means an employer must prove again to the Department of Labor that they cannot get U.S. workers.
This legislative fix keeps that visa process in place. It's a short- term legislative fix to solve the immediate H-2B visa shortage. It does not take the place of comprehensive immigration reform.
This legislation is a temporary two year fix. And it does four things:
One, it exempts returning seasonal workers from the cap. These are workers who have already successfully participated in the H-2B Visa Program. They received a visa in one of the past three years and have returned home to their families after their seasonal employment with a U.S. company.
Everyone must still play by the rules. Employers must go through the whole visa process, prove they need the seasonal help and only after that are returning employees exempt from the cap. Employees must be those who have left the U.S. and are requesting a new H-2B visa to come back for another season. This new system rewards those who have played by the rules, worked hard and successfully participated in the program. And the bill gives a helping hand to businesses by allowing them to retain workers who they have already trained to do their seasonal jobs.
Next, this bill creates new anti-fraud provisions. To make sure that everyone is playing by the rules and that no one is misusing the program. And it gives government some teeth to prevent fraud and enforce our nation's immigration laws. A $150 anti-fraud fee ensures that government agencies processing the H-2B visas will get added resources to detect and prevent fraud. New sanction provisions for those who misrepresent facts on a petition further strengthens DHS's enforcement power. This section also sends a strong message to employers--don't play games with U.S. jobs. Our bill reserves the highest penalties for employer actions which harm U.S. workers.
And, this bill creates a fair allocation of visas. Now, summer employers lose out because winter employers get all the visas. This bill makes the system fair for all employers. We reserve half of the visas for the winter and half for the summer. Allocating visas ensures that, until a long-term solution is reached, all employers will have an
equal chance of getting the workers that they need.
Finally, the bill adds some simple reporting requirements. So that DHS gives Congress the information it needs to make informed decisions about the H-2B visa program in the future.
This is a quick and simple fix. It lasts just 2 years--the rest of this year and next. And it does not get in the way of comprehensive immigration reform.
I worked with my colleagues to get a bill with strong bipartisan support, a bill that would work.
This bill is realistic. It provides a temporary solution because immediate action is needed to help these small and seasonal businesses stay in business. Yes, we need to help them now. Their seasons start soon. And if they don't get seasonal workers this year, there may not be any businesses around next year to help.
Every Member of the Senate who has heard from their constituents-- whether they are seafood processors, landscapers, resorts, timber companies, fisheries, pool companies or carnivals--knows the urgency in their voices, knows the immediacy of the problem and knows that the Congress must act now to save these businesses. I urge my colleagues to join this effort, support the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, and push this Congress to fix the problem today.
Mr. President, I am honored to rise with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, to introduce the Climate Stewardship Act. It is an urgent matter. I was thinking of one clause that I…
Mr. President, I am honored to rise with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, to introduce the Climate Stewardship Act. It is an urgent matter. I was thinking of one clause that I could remove from Senator McCain's comments. He said: Suppose Senator Lieberman and I are deluded.
It struck me that probably many times in the battles that we have fought together or individually, people have thought we were deluded. If I was going to be deluded, I would rather be deluded in the company of John McCain than anybody else I can think of. But let me say this: We are not deluded in our battle to get the U.S. Government to assume a leadership role in stopping this planet of ours from warming, with disastrous consequences for the way we and certainly our children and grandchildren will be forced to live if we do not do something.
When Senator McCain and I first started to work with people in the field, the scientists, the businesspeople, the environmentalists, we had a pretty clear picture of what was coming, but very often we had to rely on scientific models and assume their accuracy in terms of the worst consequences. That is over.
As Senator McCain's charts and pictures show, we can see with our eyes the effects of global warming already. The planet is warming. The polar ice caps are melting. One can see that with their own eyes. The sea level is rising in coastal areas already, and in other areas the water is diminishing, declining, as in the great State of my cosponsor, Arizona, and the State of the distinguished occupant of the Chair, Nevada. Forest fires are increasing. The evidence is clear that the problem is here, and that is why we have to do something about it.
Doing nothing is no longer an option. We have reached a point where the intractable must yield to the inevitable. The evidence that climate change is real and dangerous keeps pouring in and piling up. What this legislation is all about is pushing, cajoling, and convincing the politics to catch up with the science.
I will give real market-based evidence to back up what Senator McCain and I are saying about how compelling the science is. The leading insurance companies in the world--we are not talking about environmentalists--are now predicting that climate-driven disasters will cost global financial centers an additional $150 billion a year within the next 10 years. That is $150 billion of additional costs for the world as a result of climate-driven disasters.
Just a couple of weeks ago, at an international conference, the head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. R. K. Pachauri, said that we are already at ``a dangerous point'' when it comes to global warming, and ``immediate and very deep cuts in greenhouse gases are needed if humanity is to survive.'' Let me repeat those last words: ``If humanity is to survive.''
It should be noted that Dr. Pachauri is no wild-eyed environmental radical. In fact, the administration lobbied heavily for Dr. Pachauri's appointment to the IPCC leadership because it considered him a more cautious and pragmatic scientist than the other leading candidate.
To call global warming simply an environmental challenge is almost to diminish it or demean it with a kind of simplicity that puts it alongside a host of other environmental challenges that we face. Global warming is both a moral and an economic security challenge, as well as an environmental challenge.
I start with what I mean by calling it a moral challenge. Greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for about 100 years, so failure to take the prudent actions that our bill calls for--market-based, moderate, with caps--will force children still unborn to take far more drastic action to save their world as they know it and want to live in it. There is just no excuse for this.
We know it is real. I cited the melting glaciers, the coastal communities damage, the increased rate of forest fires. Previously, on this floor I have talked about the fact that a robin appeared in the north of Alaska and Canada among the Inuits native tribe, and they had no word in their 10,000-year-old civilization and vocabulary for robin.
Robins now linger longer into the winter in Connecticut, my State. Why? Because it is getting warmer.
Polar bears may soon be listed as an endangered species. Let me put it another way. We know that a petition will be filed soon to ask that polar bears be listed as an endangered species. Why? Because global warming is removing their habitat. It is wreaking havoc in the arctic climates where they live and grow. So to spoil the Earth for generations to come when we knew what we were doing and could have stopped it would be a moral failing of enormous and, I might add, Biblical proportions.
This time, it would be mankind that condemned itself, if I may put it again this way, to no longer living in the garden.
The challenge of solving global warming also presents our Nation with untold opportunities to reshape our world and assert our moral, economic, and environmental leadership. There is always opportunity in change. The world will transition to a world with limited greenhouse gas emissions, and the United States needs a program like the one we offer today to seize the new markets, as well as the environmental challenge.
In particular, Senator McCain and I are seeking now to develop additional provisions to this legislation that will provide American innovators and businesspeople with the technological incentives they need to make our bill work for them.
Looking at the recommendations of the International Climate Change Task Force, the National Commission on Energy Policy, and the Pew Center Workshop on Technologies and Policies for a Low Carbon Future, there are a number of consensus provisions that could help the U.S. transition to these technologies of the future.
These technologies are here. A recent paper in Science magazine showed that the scientific, technological, and industrial know-how already exists to limit carbon dioxide emissions substantially in the next 50 years. So we do not have to invent them. We just need the incentives and the motivation for industry, innovators, and individuals to deploy this knowledge and start us on the path toward a healthier, more sustainable future.
That is what the Climate Stewardship Act that Senator McCain and I are introducing today will do. It will provide the incentives. It will create a cap and let the market do the rest of the work, a real opportunity for change.
I am very pleased that one study being released today by the NRDC applying a method of evaluating which is advocated by the Energy Information Administration of our own Government says the Climate Stewardship Act will add 800,000 jobs to our economy by the year 2025. So it will not cost jobs, it will add them.
Over the last few years, we have seen our colleagues grappling with the challenge of global warming. So many of them seem to be of the same mind, feeling that something needs to be done but still unsure what should be done and how. Senator McCain and I want our legislation to work for them so they can come forward and join us in this effort. This is an opportunity to invest in our future to face this challenge, an opportunity to enhance our energy security, and therefore our national security, by placing a price on greenhouse gas emissions, which is what our legislation will do.
Our Nation's best energy options will become more cost competitive with foreign oil. It will make economic sense for dramatic growth in clean coal, alternative energy, and energy efficiency. It will be an opportunity for economic development in rural communities. By placing a price on carbon, it will create new value for range lands, farms, and forests by compensating landowners for the carbon they can store. It is an opportunity to innovate clean energy technologies for a growing global market. By placing this price that the cap and market will do on greenhouse gases, we will push demand for clean technologies, promoting innovation through both public and private enterprise and making that innovation profitable. It is an opportunity for our country to control the development of our own carbon market that will inevitably become part of a
global market someday soon. It is an opportunity, as Senator McCain said, to improve our relations with our allies and the rest of the world and gain a stronger voice and ability to bring in developing nations.
Without a price for carbon, these opportunities disappear. Our bill provides that price for carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. We know it is not the entire answer. A lot of people think it is too moderate and holds greenhouse gas emissions at today's levels.
By the end of the decade, it is less demanding than the Kyoto Protocol, which goes into effect as a result of Russia's ratification next week, but it is a cap that major utilities have told us they could meet. It may not be strong enough to reduce U.S. emissions as much as some would like, but it will be strong enough to start turning America around in the direction of dealing with global warming, reasserting our world environmental leadership, and moving our economy in the right direction. We cannot afford to be as shortsighted as we have been up until now. We cannot afford anymore to allow the special interests, who will also resist change because change is unnerving and sometimes more costly, to prevail.
We have to assert the public interest of ourselves and all those who will follow us on this Earth and in this great country to do something about global warming while we still can, before its consequences are disastrous. This is an enormous political challenge.
I go back to where I began. When we started, we had just models, so we were trying to portray what might happen over the horizon and ask our colleagues to join us in doing something now. It is not easy to do that because the crisis always seems further away than the immediacy of the changes a solution requires, but now we can see it. Shame on us if we do not do something about it.
I begin this battle today with Senator McCain and other cosponsors with not only a sense of commitment but a sense of encouragement and optimism that people ultimately are too reasonable and responsible to ignore the facts and do nothing about this looming disaster for humankind.
Senator McCain and I begin this battle again, and we are not going to stop until it is won.
I ask unanimous consent that several articles on climate be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to honor Abraham Lincoln in 2009, the bicentennial of his birth, by issuing a series of 1-cent coins with designs on the reverse that are emblematic of…
Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to honor Abraham Lincoln in 2009, the bicentennial of his birth, by issuing a series of 1-cent coins with designs on the reverse that are emblematic of the 4 major periods of his life, in Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. The bill would also provide for a longer-term redesign of the reverse of 1-cent coins so that after 2009 they will bear an image emblematic of Lincoln's preservation of the United States as a single and united country.
Abraham Lincoln was one of our greatest leaders, demonstrating enormous courage and strength of character during the Civil War, perhaps the greatest crisis in our Nation's history. Lincoln was born in Kentucky, grew to adulthood in Indiana, achieved fame in Illinois, and led the Nation in Washington, DC. He rose to the Presidency through a combination of honesty, integrity, intelligence, and commitment to the United States.
Adhering to the belief that all men are created equal, Lincoln led the effort to free all slaves in the United States. Despite the great passions aroused by the Civil War, Lincoln had a generous heart and acted with malice toward none and with charity for all. Lincoln made the ultimate sacrifice for the country he loved, dying from an assassin's bullet on April 15, 1865. All Americans could benefit from studying the life of Abraham Lincoln.
The ``Lincoln cent'' was introduced in 1909 on the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, making the front design by sculptor Victor David Brenner the most enduring image on the Nation's coinage. President Theodore Roosevelt was so impressed by Brenner's talent that he was chosen to design the likeness of Lincoln for the coin, adapting a design from a plaque Brenner had prepared earlier. In the nearly 100 years of production of the ``Lincoln cent,'' there have been only two designs on the reverse: the original, featuring two wheat-heads, and the current representation of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC.
On the occasion of the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth and the 100th anniversary of the production of the Lincoln cent, we should recognize his great achievement in ensuring that the United States remained one Nation, united and inseparable.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I would speak for a moment, if I could, on an issue which is near and dear to not just seniors but their families.
Last night, CMS Administrator Mark McClellan acknowledged the cumulative cost of the Medicare prescription drug program between 2006 and 2015 will reach $1.2 trillion. Although Mr. McClellan said the number would be reduced to $724 billion after seniors pay their premiums and the Federal Government is reimbursed by States for coverage of their Medicaid populations, it is still much higher than originally thought. As recently as September, Mr. McClellan said this program would only cost $534 billion.
Remember this program? This was President Bush's Medicare prescription drug program.
Now, we all understand that Medicare did not cover prescription drugs. Seniors need that coverage because drugs are so expensive, and drugs are essential for them to maintain their health and stay independent and strong for a long period of time. But when we got into this debate on the floor of the Senate about creating this program, the pharmaceutical companies lined the hallways around the Senate with men in expensive three-piece suits and Gucci loafers and said: Whatever you do, don't touch the profits of the pharmaceutical companies.
Too many Senators on both sides of the aisle decided that the profits of the pharmaceutical companies were more important than the cost of the drugs for seniors. So, in the bill we included a provision that prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies to get lower prices for drugs for seniors.
What does it mean? It means every single year the cost of prescription drugs under this Medicare program will inflate like the cost of prescription drugs for people across the United States.
Take a look at the drug price comparisons, just for the years 2005 and 2016, on some common drugs listed on this chart--what we anticipate, using the Bush Administration's calculations for the rate of increase for prescription drugs, will happen to their costs.
Look at Norvasc. It will go from $170 to $525 in 2016; Plavix, $230 to $710; Prevacid, $120 to $374; and Zocor, $124 to $383.
So in this period of time, if you want to know why the prescription drug program's costs are going through the roof, it is because the cost of the drugs is going through the roof. Unless and until Medicare can negotiate the price of these drugs, and keep them reasonable for seniors, there is no way in the world this program is going to be cost- effective. It is interesting to me that when this estimate of cost came out, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, said $400 billion was the original cost of this program, and we have to cut the benefits back to hit that cost, instead of saying, why don't we find a way to reduce the pharmaceutical company profits so we can keep the drugs seniors across America are buying at reasonable prices.
Drug prices are going to continue to rise. The price of 26 drugs most commonly used by seniors increased 21.6 percent, on average, over the last 3 years, and they will continue to increase in the future.
I have gone through some basic drugs on this chart, but I want to tell my friends who are following this debate, this is no surprise. Those of us who voted against the bill said exactly this would happen: If you do not contain the cost of drugs, you cannot afford this program. It will explode in the outyears, and future Members of Congress and Presidents will decide to cut back on the benefits under the program rather than face the reality of what we did in passing this legislation.
Medicare actuaries estimate the prescription drug benefit premium will increase from $35 a month under the President's plan in 2006 to $68 a month in 2015. Deductibles will increase. I think we are at a point where we have to acknowledge the obvious.
Let me say a word about pharmaceutical companies. We want the pharmaceutical industry to be strong and profitable because in their profits is the money for research for new drugs. That is essential for America's health and the world's health. But what we find now is that pharmaceutical companies in America are spending more money on advertising than they are on research. You cannot turn on the television without finding another ad for another drug. Why? Because they want the consuming public to walk into their doctor's office and say: Doctor, I beg you, give me the little purple pill. And doctors do. It is an expensive pill. It may not be the necessary and required pill, but doctors do it. And if you sell more of those little purple pills, the pharmaceutical companies do quite well.
Take a look at the profitability of the Fortune 500 drug companies versus the profits of all Fortune 500 companies in the year 2002. When you take a look at the drug companies on these red bars, and the other companies on the yellow bars, you can see exactly the difference. Profits as revenues: 17 percent for drug companies, 3.1 percent for other companies. Profits as a percentage of equity: 27.6 percent for pharmaceutical companies, 10.2 percent for the rest of the Fortune 500 companies.
They are extremely profitable companies. We want them to make profits, but not at the expense of seniors who cannot afford to pay.
Mr. President, I want to give my colleague an opportunity to speak here. I would say the most important thing I can tell you today is there is an answer. I am reintroducing a bill today that I believe will go a long way to reducing the cost of prescription drugs. The Medicare Prescription Drugs Savings and Choice Act instructs the Secretary of HHS to offer a nationwide Medicare-delivered prescription drug benefit in addition to the current PDP and PPO plans available in the 10 regions. It instructs the Secretary of HHS to set a uniform national premium of $35 for the first year, and it instructs the Secretary of HHS to negotiate group purchasing agreements on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.
This is the way to lower the costs of drugs. I am honored that my proposal, the legislation which I am introducing, has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, Campaign for America's Future, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Consumers Union, Families USA, and a host of other groups. It is an indication to me that they know, for their membership and seniors and Americans in general, this legislation is going to be an important step forward.
I invite my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation so we can bring the cost of drugs within the reach of senior citizens and keep a prescription drug program that is affordable.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
How much time is remaining on our side? Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when 10 minutes has lapsed. Mr. President, I wish to begin as I began yesterday, by expressing my respect for the…
How much time is remaining on our side?
Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when 10 minutes has lapsed.
Mr. President, I wish to begin as I began yesterday, by expressing my respect for the Senators from Hawaii, and it is genuine, it is a genuine respect. I also wish to begin by making it absolutely clear that there is no question about whether Hawaiians, including Native Hawaiians, are Americans. Hawaiians, including Native Hawaiians, are Americans, as good Americans as any Americans, and that is why this bill is a bad bill.
Hawaiians became U.S. citizens in 1900. They have saluted the American flag. They have paid American taxes. They have fought in American wars. The distinguished senior Senator from Hawaii has won the highest honor our Nation gives to an American warrior. In 1959, 94 percent of Hawaiians reaffirmed that commitment to become Americans by voting to become a State. Like citizens of every other State, Hawaiians vote in national elections.
My argument is that since Hawaiians have chosen to become Americans and distinguish themselves as Americans, that is the reason we should not move forward to allow a small group of Hawaiians, who live in every State in the Nation, to form a new government, a sovereign entity, which would be empowered to negotiate, as was said yesterday on this floor, the question of secession from the United States, the question of transfer of land to this new entity, the question of the transfer of money to this new entity, and the question of civil and criminal laws to this new entity.
When we began this discussion, many Senators were saying: Wait a minute, you are mischaracterizing this bill; it is not about sovereignty, it is not about land and money, it is not about race. But I think we have clearly established--and I believe it is a fair characterization of what the Senator from Hawaii has just said--that it is about sovereignty. It is clearly about race because you can't be a member of this new government unless you have Native Hawaiian blood; it may be only a drop of blood. So it is based on race. So the only possible argument to justify doing what no group of American citizens would ever be allowed to do in the United States is that this is just another Indian tribe, just another tribe. I want to address that in just a moment.
United States law, of course, does recognize Native American tribes, and the contention here today, from the Senators from Hawaii, is that this is just another tribe. That is a different contention than the State of Hawaii made a few years ago, in 1998. There, in the case of Rice v. Cayetano, the brief of the State of Hawaii said, ``the tribal concept has simply no place in the context of Hawaiian history.'' This is what the State of Hawaii said in 1998 before the Supreme Court.
Yesterday the Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General of the United States wrote a letter to the majority and minority leaders of the U.S. Senate saying that the administration strongly opposes this piece of legislation. It first discusses the constitutional objection to creating a race-based government, which clearly violates our Constitution and turns that original motto of this country, ``from one, many,'' upside-down. The letter from the Assistant Attorney General goes on to say:
While this legislation seeks to address this issue by
affording federal tribal recognition to native Hawaiians, the
Supreme Court [of the United States] has noted that whether
native Hawaiians are eligible for tribal status is a ``matter
of dispute'' and of considerable moment and difficulty.
The Assistant Attorney General goes on:
Given the substantial historical structure and cultural
differences between native Hawaiians as a group and
recognized federal Indian tribes, tribal recognition is
inappropriate for native Hawaiians and would still raise
difficult constitutional issues.
I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from the Assistant Attorney General printed in the Record.
As to the charge the U.S. Civil Rights Commission didn't review this carefully, I will ask unanimous consent to have a letter to Senator Cornyn printed in the Record. It is from a member of the Commission, Peter N. Kirsanow, writing in his individual capacity, who details the careful attention, he says, that the Commission gave to the legislation.
He says, in addition, ``I maintain that it is the worst piece of legislation the commission has reviewed during my tenure.''
I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.
Mr. President, what do we have here on the issue of ``just another tribe''? Under the United States law, as we have said several times, there are specific requirements for the recognition of an Indian tribe. The U.S. Government does recognize those tribes. But it has not created any tribe. This would be the creation, the establishment of a new sovereign government.
Here is what the law says:
The tribe must have operated as a sovereign for the last
100 years.
Native Hawaiians have not. It says:
Tribes must be a separate and distinct community.
Native Hawaiians are not. They live in every State of the United States of America; 160,000 live outside of Hawaii. Only 20,000 live on the Native Hawaiian homelands.
It further says:
A tribe must have had a preexisting political organization.
The Native Hawaiians did not. That is why, I suppose, the brief of the State of Hawaii acknowledged in the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1998, ``The tribal concept simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history.''
In the history of our country, as it grew and developed, there have been many wrongs. The men who wrote our Constitution, setting our high goals, were only men. And women didn't even have the right to vote in the United States until 100 years ago. Those who wrote the Constitution locked out the press. The press would say today that is a wrong. Those who wrote the Constitution, many of them, owned slaves. That was a terrible wrong.
But our history is filled with reaching high goals to address and correct those wrongs, and doing it as a Nation, as Americans, all of us together. We are proud of our nationalities, of where we come from. But when we become Americans, as Hawaiians did when they became a State in 1959, we pledge allegiance to the United States of America. This bill would create a new competing government. That is what is wrong with this bill. It is the wrong way to right whatever wrongs may have happened in Hawaii.
It is my hope that my colleagues will vote no on this bill. Perhaps there are other ways that the Congress can help the distinguished Senators from Hawaii address wrongs which may have existed in Hawaii. But if that motto means anything, ``E pluribus unum,'' and if the constitutional prohibition against making distinctions based on race means anything, then we should not be authorizing a new sovereign government capable of negotiating secession, land, money, civil and criminal penalties--admission to which is only based upon race. The U.S. Department of Justice, the Supreme Court, the State of Hawaii itself--all have said this is not a tribe. Hawaiians are proud Americans,
which is why this bill should be rejected.
Mr. President, there is a fundamental shortcoming to this bill that can't be corrected by small amendments. There is no question that this legislation would--and I believe for the first time in our history--create a new, separate, independent race-based government within the borders of the United States of America. The only argument that could possibly justify such an offense to our constitutional tradition and our original motto, which says that when we became Americans we are proud of where we came from but we are prouder of being Americans, is that Native Hawaiians are just another Indian tribe. But the government of Hawaii itself, in a brief in the Supreme Court in 1998, said: ``The tribal concept simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history.''
The Department of Justice, in a letter yesterday to the majority leader, with a copy to the minority leader, said: ``Tribal recognition is inappropriate for native Hawaiians and would still raise difficult constitutional issues.''
I have outlined in my remarks how Native Hawaiians do not constitute just another tribe. There may be wrongs to address, but this is the wrong way to right a wrong.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Cloture Motion
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the next generation of Hispanic Serving Institutions legislation. This legislation is critical if we, as a Nation, are going to continue to compete in a…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the next generation of Hispanic Serving Institutions legislation. This legislation is critical if we, as a Nation, are going to continue to compete in a global economy. Education is the key to building a strong and dynamic economy, and therefore, it is our obligation to ensure quality educational opportunities for all Americans. That is why I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Hutchison, the Next Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act of 2005. This legislation is supported by the Hispanic Education Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of national organizations dedicated to improving educational opportunities for more than 40 million Hispanics living in the United States, including groups like National Council of La Raza, HACU, and MALDEF. Senators Bill Nelson and Clinton have joined in this effort as cosponsors.
According to Census Bureau data, Hispanic population in the United States grew by 25.7 million between 1970 and 2000 and continues to grow at a very brisk pace. The most recent census data puts the Hispanic population at over 40 million, representing approximately 14 percent of the U.S. population and making it the Nation's largest minority group. Estimates project that the Hispanic population will grow by 25 million between 2000 and 2020. By the year 2050, 1 in 4 Americans will be of Hispanic origin.
Currently, Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the U.S. labor force. While the overall labor force is projected to slow down over the next decades as an increasing number of workers reach retirement age, the Hispanic labor force is expected to continue growing at a fast pace. It will expand by nearly 10 million workers between now and 2020, through a combination of immigration and native-born youth reaching working age.
Our Nation's economic and social success rests, in large part, on the level of skills and knowledge attained by our Hispanic population.
I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original Hispanic Serving Institutions proposal when it was enacted as part of the Higher Education Act in 1992 in order to increase educational opportunities for Hispanic students. Since then, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, have made significant strides in increasing the number of Hispanic students enrolling in and graduating from college. Although Hispanic- serving institutions account for only 5 percent of all institutions of higher education in the United States,
HSIs enroll over half, 51 percent, of all Hispanics pursuing higher education degrees in the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
While Hispanic high school graduates go on to college at higher rates than they did even ten years ago, Hispanics still lag behind their non- Hispanic peers in postsecondary school enrollment. In 2000, only 21.7 percent of all Hispanics ages 18 through 24 were enrolled in postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States.
We must take HSIs to the next level. While the percentage of Hispanics attending college has increased significantly over the past few years, Hispanic students are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges, and are much less likely to finish college than their non- Hispanic peers. In 2001, only slightly more than 1 in 10 Hispanics ages 25 years and over had received a bachelor's degree or higher.
According to the Department of Education, in 2000, Hispanics only earned 6 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded, 4 percent of all master's degrees, and only 3 percent of all doctorates. But the pace of bachelor's degrees or higher earned by Hispanics is accelerating rapidly, according to the Department of Education. Therefore, we must keep pace. We must increase the capacity of our institutions of higher education to serve the increasing number of Hispanic students.
The Next Generation HSI bill does just that. Simply, this legislation will improve educational opportunities for Hispanic students by establishing a competitive grant program to expand post-baccalaureate degree opportunities at HSIs, and by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome administrative requirements HSIs must contend with.
Current law only provides support for 2-year and 4-year Hispanic Serving Institutions. This legislation will support graduate fellowships and support services for graduate students, facilities improvement, faculty development, technology and distance education, and collaborative arrangements with other institutions. This legislation will build capacity and establish a long overdue graduate program for HSIs.
In addition, current law places a number of unnecessary, burdensome administrative and regulatory barriers at the gates of our HSIs. If our goal is to increase educational opportunities for all students, and particularly Hispanic students, then we must eliminate bureaucratic barriers that impede access.
Accordingly, this legislation removes a 2-year period in which HSIs must wait before becoming eligible to apply for another grant under title V of the Higher Education Act. This 2-year wait out period obstructs the efforts of many HSIs to implement continuing programs and conduct long range planning. As a result, many HSIs cannot maintain continuity in educational programming. We should be creating opportunities to improve the quality of education, and eliminating this wait-out period is a step in the right direction.
In addition, this bill eliminates another onerous requirement on HSIs that other minority-serving institutions are not required to follow. Currently, in order to be eligible as an HSI, the institution must serve ``needy students''--meaning at least 50 percent of the degree students are receiving Federal need-based assistance or the institution's percentage of Pell Grant recipients exceeds the median percentage for similar institutions receiving Pell Grants. Also, to be eligible, 25 percent of the full time, undergraduate population must be Hispanic. However, unlike other grant programs in the Higher Education Act, HSIs must also show that 50 percent of the Hispanic population is low income.
This last requirement is particularly burdensome, as it is duplicative and unfair, and, in many cases, prevents HSIs from providing vital educational services to Hispanic students. This provision requires the institutions to collect information and data that is not readily available or easily acquirable. It requires the schools to come up with data beyond what is required for financial aid purposes. Further, there is no other requirement in Federal law for institutions to collect this type of data. As a result, many institutions with large Hispanic student populations must divert critical resources and staff to acquire this information, or they simply do not qualify as an HSI.
To ensure that the institution continues to serve low-income students, the Next Generation HSI Act maintains the requirement that the institution serve needy students, but eliminates the additional requirement that the school demonstrate that 50 percent of its Hispanic students are low-income. The elimination of this requirement will ease the administrative burdens placed on our schools, and further our goals of increasing access and improving quality.
Finally, this bill facilitates the transition of Hispanic students from 2-year colleges to 4-year colleges. As I noted earlier, Hispanics are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges as compared to their non-Hispanic peers. To encourage and support these students' continued education, this legislation adds as an authorized activity programs that assist a student's transfer from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution.
Hispanic students now account for nearly 17 percent of the total kindergarten through grade 12 student population. Estimates project that this student population will grow from 11 million in 2005 to 16 million in 2020. We must provide our institutions of higher education with the resources and flexibility they need to build capacity and serve the increasing Hispanic student population. We must be ready for the next generation of students to meet the demands of a competitive workforce and to fully participate in the global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues and cosponsors Senators Jay Rockefeller and Richard Lugar as we introduce the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005.…
Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues and cosponsors Senators Jay Rockefeller and Richard Lugar as we introduce the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005. Senators Rockefeller and Collins, along with Senator Wyden, sponsored legislation with similar goals in the past and have provided invaluable support and counsel in drafting the bill we introduce today.
The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005 has a simple purpose: to encourage all adults in America, especially those 65 and older, to think about, talk about and write down their wishes for medical care near the end of life should they become unable to make decisions for themselves. Advance directives, which include a living will stating the individual's preferences for care, and a power of attorney for health care, are critical documents that each of us should have. The goal is clear, but reaching it requires that we educate the public about the importance of advance directives, offer opportunities for discussion of the issues, and reinforce the requirement that health care providers honor patients' wishes. This bill is designed to do just that.
Americans are afraid of death. We don't like to think about it, talk about it, or plan for it. And yet, we will all face it. Not only our own deaths, but our parents, siblings, friends, and sometimes, tragically, children. Today, most Americans face death unprepared. Family members frequently end up making critical medical decisions for incapacitated patients, yet they, too, are unprepared. Only 15-20 percent of adults have advance directives. Among this group, many have not discussed the contents of these important documents with their families or even the person named as the health care proxy.
It is time to bring this discussion into the mainstream. Too much is at stake to continue to deny our mortality. You all know about the tragic situation going on in Florida with Terri Schiavo. Here is a young woman in a persistent vegetative state who is the subject of a debate about her treatment between her husband and her parents, a debate that has been a court case and a legislative quagmire. Why? Because she didn't write down what type of care she would want in the event an accident, illness or other medical condition caused her to be in an incapacitated state. She is young and didn't think about death or dying. If she had an advance directive that made her wishes clear and named a health care proxy to make decisions for her should she be unable to do so for herself, the treatment debate might continue, but there would be no question as to who could decide. The Supreme Court has clearly affirmed that competent adults have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, Washington v. Glucksburg and Vacco v. Quill, 1997, but it also stressed that advance directives are a means of safeguarding that right should adults become incapable of deciding for themselves.
Fortunately, situations like Ms. Schiavo's are rare. Of the 2.5 million people who die each year 83 percent are Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, 27 percent of Medicare expenditures cover care in the last year of life. Remember, everyone who enrolls in Medicare will die on Medicare. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act encourages all Medicare beneficiaries to prepare advance directives by providing a free physician office visit for the purpose of discussing end-of-life care choices and other issues around medical decision- making in a time of incapacitation. Physicians will be reimbursed for spending time with their patients to help them understand situations in which an advance directive would be useful, medical options, the Medicare hospice benefit and other concerns. The conversation will also enable physicians to learn about their patients' wishes, fears, religious beliefs, and life experiences that might influence their medical care wishes. These are important aspects of a physician-patient relationship that are too often unaddressed.
Another part of our bill will provide funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of the importance of planning for care near the end of life. This campaign would explain what advance directives are, where they are available, what questions need to be asked and answered, and what to do with the executed documents. HHS, directly or through grants, would also establish an information clearinghouse where consumers could receive state-specific information and consumer- friendly documents and publications.
State-specific information is needed because in addition to the federal Patients Self Determination Act passed in 1990, most states also have enacted advance directive laws. Because the state laws differ, some states may be reluctant to honor advance directives that were executed in another state. The bill we introduce today contains language that would make all advance directives ``portable,'' that is, useful from one state to another. As long as the documents were lawfully executed in the state of origin, they must be accepted and honored in the state in which they are presented, unless to do so would violate state law.
All of the provisions in the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2005 are there for one reason: to increase the number of people in the United States who have advance directives, who have discussed their wishes with their physicians and families, and who have given copies of the directives to their loved ones, health care providers, and legal representatives.
This new Medicare benefit and education campaign will also lead to a reduction in litigation costs. By encouraging advance directives, cases like Ms. Schiavo's would be less frequent; therefore the long and costly litigation surrounding these unfortunate situations would be reduced.
Senators Rockefeller, Lugar and I all believe that as our Medicare population grows and life expectancy lengthens, improving care near the end of life must be a priority. Helping people complete these critical documents is an essential part of making the final journey as meaningful and peaceful as possible. In addition, there are growing numbers of health care providers, nonprofit organizations and consumer advocates who recognize the need for change. New palliative care programs, pain protocols and hospice services are being instituted in facilities around the country.
This body is a legislative institution not a medical one--with the exceptions of the distinguished Majority Leader and Senator Coburn, of course. We cannot legislate good medical care or compassion. What we can do, what I hope we will do, is to enact this bill so that the American public can participate in improving end-of-life care--first, by filling out their own advance directives and talking to their families about them; and by raising their voices to demand that our health care systems honor their wishes and improve the way they care for people who are near the end of life. If we can do that, we will have done a great deal.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Show 11 more
Mr. President, the history of America has been one of racial inequity, followed by a long but sure path to reconciliation. At the time of this country's founding, a person's race could determine…
Mr. President, the history of America has been one of racial inequity, followed by a long but sure path to reconciliation. At the time of this country's founding, a person's race could determine whether he lived in freedom or in slavery.
Fifty years ago, race could still determine where a person could live, what water fountain he could drink from, or what kind of life he could lead.
Today, thankfully, that is no longer true. We have recognized that nearly every time our Government has taken race into account when dealing with its citizens, the effects have been detrimental, if not devastating; and for that reason, as President Kennedy once said, ``Race has no place in American life or law.''
Unfortunately, today, the Senate is considering a bill that would wreck the progress we have made toward a color-blind society.
S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, would not only direct the Government to establish a government based solely on race, it would also seek to confer preferences based on race. It violates the letter and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and it must be opposed.
When I say the bill violates the U.S. Constitution, I am referring specifically to the 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the Civil War, to address unequal treatment based on race.
The 14th amendment reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
. . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
The 14th amendment was quite clear. The way this bill tries to maneuver around its unconstitutionality is by classifying Native Hawaiians via the Federal Indian law system, and creating a new ``tribe'' of Native Hawaiians.
But this new ``tribe'' is a shell game. Native Hawaiians have never been viewed as an Indian tribe, including when Hawaiians overwhelmingly voted for statehood in 1959.
As recently as 1998, the State of Hawaii itself acknowledged that the tribal concept has no historical basis in Hawaii. Specifically, in Rice v. Cayetano, the State of Hawaii wrote the following in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is what the State of Hawaii had to say at that time:
For the Indians the formerly independent sovereign entity
that governed them was the tribe, but for Native Hawaiians,
their formerly independent sovereign nation was the kingdom
of Hawaii, not any particular tribe or equivalent political
entity. . . .The tribal concept simply has no place in the
context of Hawaiian history.
That was in the brief of the State of Hawaii itself in a case in 1998.
Mr. President, the Senate should be an institution that brings America together. Let's not tear apart our common identity as Americans. We should not use this fiction of Indian tribe status for Native Hawaiians to divide our country.
By the way, have I mentioned that not even the people of Hawaii support this bill? According to a poll conducted by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, 67 percent of Hawaiians oppose it--two-thirds of the State. Hawaiians overwhelmingly oppose this bill, based upon those survey results.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted public hearings on S. 147. They oppose it and recommend against its passage. They oppose it because they believe it is racially discriminatory and divisive. This is what the Commission on Civil Rights had to say about this measure:
The Commission recommends against the passage of the Native
Hawaiians Government Reorganization Act . . . or any other
legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or
national origin and further subdivide the American people
into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of
privilege.
And it should be pointed out that it seems that private interests who commented on the bill opposed it, with only institutional interests submitting comments in support of the bill. Only institutional interests have advocated for it. But the people, it seems, do not want it.
That includes even some Native Hawaiians. One person who testified before the commission was a Hawaiian named Kaleihanamau Johnson. She told them:
I am of Hawaiian, Caucasian and Chinese descent . . . and
do not support the Akaka bill.
Ms. Johnson went on to say that if this bill passes:
I will be forced to choose on which side of the fence to
stand. I will choose the Anglo-American tradition of the
right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of
happiness. This will prevent me from recognizing all that is
Hawaiian in me. I consider the Akaka bill to be a proposal to
violate my rights.
Let me share some of the testimony of advocates of Hawaiian statehood from half a century ago. These comments show that Hawaiians entered the
Union with the expectation of being equal to any other of our States. Overwhelmingly, Hawaiians were eager to be Americans. Senator Wallace Bennett of Utah, the father of our good friend, the current Senator from Utah, said in 1954:
Hawaii is literally an American outpost in the Pacific,
completely reflecting the American scene, with its religious
variations, its cultural, business and agricultural customs,
and its politics.
And former Interior Secretary Fred Seaton wrote to a Senate committee in 1959:
Hawaii is truly American in every aspect of its life.
I sure hope that is true, in the sense that being American means we do not define and divide people by race, but we transcend that. Every American, regardless of race, has equal freedom to excel. That is why we attract people of all races, from all over the world, who leave behind what they have known and start new lives here.
Because we are a multiracial, multicultural society, and because of the misfortunes that have transpired when this country has looked at its citizens through the prism of race, we must not turn racial preferences into law, as this bill would have us do.
I believe the way forward for our country is for the Government to focus less and less on race, not more and more. To treat people differently based on race implies that, on some fundamental level, race defines who we are.
I believe history has shown that idea to be bankrupt. And I believe that America has led the way in proving it so.
Let's do our best to get this country to a point where race truly has no place, not when it comes to our Government, or to our promise of equal justice under the law.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
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. President, I rise today in support of S. 352, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act. This legislation, which I'm proud to cosponsor, would provide emergency relief to thousands of small…
Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 352, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act. This legislation, which I'm proud to cosponsor, would provide emergency relief to thousands of small and seasonal businesses across the country, many of which are significant employers in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Virginia, Senator George Allen. I particularly would like to thank Senator Barbara Mikulski and Senator Judd Gregg, the sponsors of this bipartisan bill, for their leadership in this area.
Our legislation is simple. It makes common-sense reforms to our H-2B visa program that will allow our small and seasonal companies an opportunity to remain open for business. Without these modifications, these employers will continue to struggle in their efforts to find the necessary employees to keep their businesses running.
The H-2B visa program is designed to allow nonagricultural businesses to supplement their workforce with non-immigrant workers when American workers cannot be found. The cap is set at 66,000 per fiscal year, which begins on October 1 of each year. Employers can only apply for a visa 120 days before the work is needed.
For each of the last two years, this statutory cap was reached soon after the fiscal year began. In 2004, the cap was reached on March 20. As a result, many businesses, mostly summer employers, were unable to obtain the temporary workers they needed because the cap was filled prior to the day they could even apply for the visas.
Consequently, these businesses sustained significant economic losses.
This year the H-2B visa cap was reached on January 3, 2005. Now, even more businesses, especially in the seafood industry which has a long history in Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay, are susceptible to significant losses.
The hardships in these and other businesses are very real. Many in the seafood industry in Virginia have come to my office, looked me straight in the eye, and told me that their businesses aren't going to make it another year if something isn't done. Only through passage of this legislation can this detrimental cycle be interrupted and these business can be saved.
There are three main criticisms of this program which I am certain some will raise: these H-2B workers are taking jobs away from Americans; automation of these jobs makes H-2B workers unnecessary; and finally, these workers come into the U.S. under the guise of returning home after they've finished, but they never do. In my view, these criticisms of the H-2B program simply do not reflect the reality.
Believe me, I am a strong supporter of efforts to help those Americans who want to work get the skills they need to be successful in the workforce. But these H-2B workers are not taking jobs from Americans, they are filling in the gaps left vacant by Americans that don't want them. The jobs we are talking about here are seasonal, labor intensive, and require a certain amount of skill, mainly in the areas of oyster and crab harvesting, seafood processing, landscaping, reforestation, and seasonal resorts and other hospitality services.
Furthermore, most of these jobs cannot be automated. What kind of machine will you use to fully landscape a yard, to arrange and plant flowers? Some in the seafood industry already tried to automate parts of crab harvesting, but it was a complete failure. The machines failed to remove most of the bits of crab shells from the meat, and the consumers flat out rejected it.
As for the criticism that these temporary workers won't leave, a long review of the management of this program reveals otherwise. The employers have successfully ensured that the workers return to their home country. If they don't, employers aren't able to participate in the program next year, and neither are the workers. Most consulates in their home countries require the workers to present themselves personally to prove that they have returned home.
The future success of the H-2B visa program rests on the ability of businesses to participate in it, but right now, many will be denied access to the program for the second year in a row. The bill introduced today helps fix this problem by focusing on three main objectives to help make the H-2B program more effective and more fair.
First, the bill will reward good workers and employers by exempting from the cap H-2B workers who have participated in the program successfully in one of the past three years. These are companies and employees that have faithfully abided by the law, and they have a successful track record of working together.
Second, the bill will make sure that the government agencies processing the H-2B visas have the resources they need to detect and prevent fraud. Starting on October 1, 2005, employers participating in the program will pay an additional fee that will be placed in a Fraud Prevention and Detection account. The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Labor can use these funds to educate and train their employees to prevent and detect fraudulent visas.
Finally, the bill implements a visa allocation system that is fair for all employers. Half of the 66,000 visas will be reserved for employers needing workers in the winter and the other half will be reserved for companies needing workers for the summer. This provision allows both winter employers and summer employers an equal chance to obtain the workers they desperately need.
These seasonal businesses just can't find enough American workers to meet their business needs. And ultimately, that is why this program is so important. Without Americans to fill these jobs, these businesses need to be able to participate in the H-2B program. The current system isn't treating small and seasonal businesses fairly and must be reformed if we want these employers to stay in business.
In closing, I strongly support this legislation, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join with me to help these small and seasonal businesses by passing this legislation as quickly as possible.
Mr. President, there are many issues we confront these days that are significant and serious. I wanted to bring one to the attention of the Chamber as I introduce legislation. I send a bill to the…
Mr. President, there are many issues we confront these days that are significant and serious. I wanted to bring one to the attention of the Chamber as I introduce legislation.
I send a bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral on behalf of myself and Senator Clinton.
Mr. President, this legislation deals with trade. Let me describe what was announced this morning by the administration.
Last year's trade deficit was $618 billion. You can see from this chart what has happened in the last 8 or 9 years. Our trade deficit has gone in the red by a dramatic amount, ending up at $618 billion for 2004.
What does that mean? That means we purchased from other countries $618 billion worth of goods more than we sold to other countries. In other words, every single day, 7 days a week, $1.8 billion leaves this country and goes into foreign hands to pay for goods that we purchased from abroad.
As a result, foreign entities have $2.5 trillion worth of claims against our assets, our property, our stocks, and our assets. We are, with our trade policies, selling America.
With China alone, we have a $161 billion trade deficit. This is unbelievably out of balance. We purchase China's trinkets, trousers, shirts, and shoes. Now they're making plans to ship Chinese automobiles to this country.
By the way, as I told my colleagues before, in the last trade agreement with China we agreed they could charge a tariff on imported U.S. cars which is 10 times higher than the tariff we can charge on Chinese cars sold in the United States.
Who did that? I don't know; some trade negotiator.
It is the same old story with cars from China, cars from Korea, wheat to China, beef to Japan. It is the same old story.
I mentioned to my colleagues many times what Will Rogers said in the 1930s: ``The United States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference.'' He said we can't send negotiators to Costa Rica and come back with our shirts on. He surely must have been thinking about the people who had been negotiating trade agreements that resulted in these kinds of deficits.
Now our trade deficit on a yearly basis is over 5 percent of our gross domestic product. Who holds this debt? Japan holds $715 billion of asset claims against our country, and China, $191 billion.
Does anybody think this is healthy for our country? This kind of trade deficit and combined trade debt is going to injure America's future economic growth and continue to accelerate the movement of U.S. jobs overseas. That is what is behind all of these numbers.
American corporations in recent decades have discovered that you can move technology and capital at the speed of light. And they have discovered there are a billion people in other parts of the world who are willing to work for 30 cents an hour. When you can ship technology and capital to someone overseas willing to work for 30 cents an hour, you begin to hollow out the manufacturing sector in this country.
The news this morning of the largest trade deficit in the history of this country is sober news. This town will sleep through it once again. The White House will sleep through it, and so will the Congress. It doesn't matter much to most people.
We have a debt limit in this country that says once the government borrows a certain amount, we have to have a debate, and vote on it. Otherwise, you can't go any further.
But there is no trade debt limit. Whatever the trade debt is, it is. Katy bar the door, no matter how high it is. There is no requirement to do anything about it.
The legislation I introduced, along with my colleague Senator Clinton, will establish a trade debt limit and a trade deficit limit. When the trade deficit exceeds 5 percent of our gross domestic product, then it requires certain things. It is an alarm clock that requires the administration's trade review group to have an emergency meeting, and within 45 days the administration and the trade ambassador have to submit to Congress a plan to reduce the trade deficit.
Somebody someplace, someday, some way has to decide the current situation can't continue. This is all about jobs and future economic opportunity. This is real, and it is immediate. And we have to do something about it.
That is why we have introduced this legislation. This country has been in a deep sleep about an abiding trade problem in which we link with other countries in bilateral agreements. In almost every case these are not mutually beneficial. Instead, the agreements are beneficial to them and detrimental to us. Yet, we have people on street corners chanting ``free trade.''
I think trade is fine, I think fair trade is important, and I think expanding trade is valuable. But I believe free trade, if it means a trade agreement which undercuts this country's ability to compete, free trade which pulls the rug out from under our workers, and establishes conditions under which we cannot compete, is wrong for this country.
I will not go through again the list of issues of potato flakes going to Korea, beef to Japan, wheat to China. I could go through dozens of them. I will not do that again today. My point is that at some point somebody has to have the backbone and the will and the nerve to stand up for this country's economic interests. That has not been done for a long while. It needs to be done now because this trade deficit has reached crisis proportions.
One final chart: Some said that last month the trade deficit was actually a little better than the month before. This is a town of warped reality on a lot of issues. Let me describe what has happened to our trade deficit month by month since 1998. It does not take a sharp eye to see what is happening.
This trade deficit is growing. It is dangerous. It is harmful to the long-term economic interests of this country. We have to do something about it.
Mr. President, how much time remains on our side of the aisle? I ask unanimous consent that I be allotted 10 minutes out of that time. Mr. President, yesterday, when I came to the floor and spoke on…
Mr. President, how much time remains on our side of the aisle?
I ask unanimous consent that I be allotted 10 minutes out of that time.
Mr. President, yesterday, when I came to the floor and spoke on this legislation--the so-called Native Hawaiian legislation--I indicated that I had profound concerns about the constitutionality of the bill. I might add that it is not sufficient for Members of Congress to say that the courts will clean up the mess after we pass the bill. Indeed, it is our responsibility to uphold and defend the Constitution as Members of the Senate.
Yesterday, we heard a few hours of discussion from both those who support and those who oppose the bill. I have made no secret of my opposition. Simply put, I cannot and I will not support a bill the purpose of which is to divide America and is based upon race, and which is clearly contrary to our fundamental American principle of equal justice under the law.
The bill would create a separate race-based government for Native Hawaiians to the exclusion of all other Americans. And because of its very focus on race, the legislation creates particularly troublesome constitutional problems. In fact, it appears to be designed to be an end-run around the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the year 2000, in Rice v. Cayetano, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision which has struck down the practice of segmenting Hawaiians based upon race. I mentioned the 2000 decision in Rice v. Cayetano. That was a 7-to-2 decision which struck down the ancestry requirements for voting for the Office of Native Hawaiian Affairs trustee elections. The Court found that because ancestry was a proxy for race and the election was an affair of the State, it was in violation of the Constitution, and particularly the 15th amendment to the Constitution.
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, makes clear why the very purpose of S. 147 creates broad constitutional concerns:
One of the reasons race is treated as a forbidden
classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a
person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own
merit and essential qualities. An inquiry into ancestral
lines is not consistent with respect based on the unique
personality each of us possesses, a respect the Constitution
itself secures in its concern for persons and citizens.
Some say this bill simply equates Native Hawaiians to Indian tribes. But Congress cannot simply and arbitrarily create Indian tribes where they don't exist. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to make Indian tribes out of subsets of Americans who have no relationship whatsoever to an Indian tribe. The Supreme Court has been clear that Congress may not insulate a program from the Constitution's strict scrutiny for legal distinctions based upon race by ``bring[ing] a community or body of people within the range of this [congressional] power by arbitrarily calling them an Indian tribe.''
In addition, the 14th amendment precludes the use of race in making appointments--something clearly contemplated by this bill. This bill perhaps most clearly raises constitutional concerns in its direct contravention of the Supreme Court ruling in Rice. The legislation would require that the Department of the Interior manage a special election in which eligibility depends entirely on race. As I have pointed out before, the Court made clear that racial restrictions relating to Native Hawaiians is prohibited by the 15th amendment.
In summary, in its attempt to pigeonhole Native Hawaiians as equivalent to an Indian tribe and to create a governmental entity based entirely on race, S. 147 runs counter to the express letter and certainly the spirit of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, despite these clear constitutional problems, it seems that some in the Senate are content to acquiesce--to accept passing an unconstitutional bill, while passing the buck to the courts to bail us out. Yet just 2 days ago, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were talking about what they thought was ``wasting time'' on defending marriage, a basic institution--perhaps the most basic institution--in our society.
And yet they are willing to spend a week debating a measure that has little chance of passing and that flies squarely in the face of the Constitution. I find these inconsistencies difficult to reconcile.
The sponsors of this legislation last year wrote a Dear Colleague letter that suggests that any constitutional inquiries should be left to the courts, the implication of which is Congress should not concern itself with the bill's constitutionality. I could not disagree more.
When I came to Washington, I, like the rest of my colleagues, swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. That pledge is non-negotiable and does not allow, much less require, me or any Member of the Senate to defer our obligations to pass legislation that reasonably appears to be within the four corners of the United States Constitution.
Congress is required to uphold the Constitution, as are judges. More importantly, it is imperative that we pass legislation that furthers the principles of the Constitution rather than dissolve them. A constitutional commitment to equal justice for all would be undermined should we choose today to endorse the creation of a race-based government. This is not a question that should be passed off to the courts. We should decide right here and right now.
I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the motion to proceed. If they are serious about working on issues that really matter, I urge them to allow the Senate to move on to consider other pressing business.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, we have long recognized that our country has an obligation to take care of the brave men and women who wear the uniform of the United States--and their families. Sixty years ago we…
Mr. President, we have long recognized that our country has an obligation to take care of the brave men and women who wear the uniform of the United States--and their families.
Sixty years ago we passed the GI Bill of Rights for the 16 million veterans who served in WorId War II. By providing new opportunities in housing and education, we helped them return to civilian life.
Our military forces have changed dramatically since then--but the benefits we offer to military families haven't kept pace with the changes.
Today our military relies on volunteers, and our security depends on recruiting and retaining good troops--including members of the National Guard and Reserves.
The Guard and Reserves serve at the command of State governors, but members are also available to be called to active duty by the President. And over the last 10 years, the role of the National Guard and Reserves in our military has steadily increased.
Today, reports indicate that almost half of the forces deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom come from the National Guard and the Reserves.
These Guardsmen and Reservists are not only providing much-needed ``boots on the ground.'' They bring specific skills that our regular active military cannot duplicate.
For example, in my home state of Nevada, half of the pilots in the Nevada Air National Guard are civilian pilots.
A majority of the Nevada National Guard military police, who are in the 72nd MP Company that just returned from Iraq, work as law enforcement officers in Las Vegas.
And the Nevada Army Guard's 126th Medical Company an air ambulance
unit, which flew more than 174 traumatic medical evacuations in Afghanistan, is made up entirely of men and women who work as civilian paramedics.
So the National Guard and Reserves are strengthened by the fact that members hold civilian jobs as pilots, police officers and paramedics.
The Guard and Reserves also provide the primary service--or the only service--in several crucial areas of national security, including: port security; airport security; civil support teams; and reconnaissance and Drug Air Interdiction.
Since we rely more than ever on members of our National Guard and Reserves, we need to modernize the benefits that are available to them--especially in the areas of retirement and health care.
Let's start with health care.
It's true that service in the Guard and Reserve is a part time obligation--but it is unlike any other part-time job that a person might hold.
When the Guard and Reserves call, members must put their duty above their regular jobs and even their families. That means taking time off from their regular jobs . . . and forgoing many family activities because they are busy fulfilling their Guard or reserve duties.
And it means being ready for deployment at any time.
In short, we expect members to make the Guard and Reserves a top priority in their lives.
In return for that commitment . . . for the sacrifices they make at their regular jobs . . . we owe them the peace of mind of knowing that their families will receive quality medical care.
We need to offer medical care that leverages the existing military health care system. That is why TRICARE should be an option for all members of the National Guard and Reserves.
The lack of health care benefits for Guard and Reserve members is a serious problem. Currently, about 40 percent of the enlisted members don't have any health care coverage.
This affects troop readiness. In recent mobilizations, 10 to 15 percent of the Guard and Reserve members could not be deployed due to health-related issues.
It also affects the state of mind of those who are training for dangerous deployments. A Reservist in training on the weekend shouldn't be worried about whether his or her sick child will be able to see a doctor.
Providing better health care benefits to members of the Guard and Reserve is not only the right thing to do--it's a matter of national security.
We just also upgrade the retirement benefits available to those who choose to serve for long periods of time.
A person who serves in the Guard or Reserve for 20 years is subject to being called up to active duty numerous times, disrupting his or her civilian career and retirement planning.
We must take this into account, and improve the retirement benefits for Guard and Reserve members.
The current reserve retirement system is 50 years old, and it doesn't reflect the extent to which our nation now depends on the National Guard and Reserves.
This outdated system doesn't allow members to receive retired pay or retiree health benefits until they are 60 years old. We must update the system so those who serve can receive benefits at age 55, if they meet all the other requirements.
This change would recognize the importance of the Guard and Reserves in today's military . . . and it would recognize the sacrifices that members make in their civilian careers in order to serve their country.
Once again, this is not only the right thing to do--it will make our country stronger and safer by encouraging and rewarding service in the National Guard and Reserves.
Mr. President, I will use my leader time now. Mr. President, I have had the good fortune to serve here in Washington almost a quarter of a century. I have had the good fortune of serving with…
Mr. President, I will use my leader time now.
Mr. President, I have had the good fortune to serve here in Washington almost a quarter of a century. I have had the good fortune of serving with wonderful people, both when I served in the House and when I have had the opportunity to serve here in the Senate. As I look back over the delegations from the respective States here during my service in the Senate, there are no two finer men, no two finer persons who have ever served in our Senate than the two Senators who now represent the State of Hawaii. Senator Akaka and Senator Inouye are two of the best.
Everyone knows, because I have stated here on the floor, how I feel about Dan Inouye. I have never, ever known a person for whom I have more respect and admiration than I do Dan Inouye. Think about that: A man who has earned the highest award this country can give for heroism, the Medal of Honor; Dan Akaka, who served in the military.
We live in a country that is a Federal Government. What does that mean? It means, as I learned in college, that you have a central whole divided among self-governing parts. What are those self-governing parts? It is the State of Nevada, it is the State of Florida, it is the State of Tennessee, and it is the State of Hawaii--plus 46 others; none better than the other. Hawaii is equal to Florida, to Tennessee, to Nevada.
Let's talk about Nevada. Nevada has been a State for a long time, since 1864. Hawaii is one of the two new kids on the block, along with Alaska. But take Nevada as an example. The State of Nevada has 22 different Indian tribes and Indian entities. The State of Nevada knows they are there. It works just fine. It doesn't take away our sense that we are part of the Federal Government. We need to treat Hawaii as we do other States.
Some have said here that it is going to change the State of Hawaii. I think we should give the Senators from the State of Hawaii a little bit of credit for doing what is right for their State. We are scheduled to vote in just a short time on a motion to proceed to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. This vote provides all Senators an opportunity to do right by Native Hawaiians, and just as importantly by Hawaii's two very distinguished Senators, about whom I have just spoken.
A look at the historical record of Native Hawaiians demonstrates the importance of this legislation. That is why the two Senators from Hawaii have worked tirelessly on its behalf.
I can remember when this vote was scheduled previously. It was within a day or two of when Katrina hit. In Washington at the time was the Governor of the State of Hawaii. She believed just as strongly as these two men that it was good for Hawaii. It was bipartisan. She is a Republican and these are two Democrats.
From their very first contacts with the western world more than two centuries ago to today, Native Hawaiians have endured a lot--just as the Native American Indians in Nevada endured a lot, a whole lot. While the Native Hawaiians have done so much, with such quiet dignity and courage, it should be clear to all of us that they now require our attention.
This legislation will do several things. First, it establishes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian Government Authority. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing different from the Pyramid Paiute tribe in northern Nevada. Pyramid is named after the lake there, Pyramid Lake.
It is no different from the Owyhee Indians in the northeastern part of our State. How would you get a name that sounds like Hawaii? Their reservation is Owyhee because well more than 100 years ago some Hawaiians came there to trap, and that is the last we heard of them. But the name never left. Hawaii, Owyhee. It is a sovereign tribe in Nevada. It has Hawaiian roots--at least the name. We are proud of them, the Indians. That reservation is made up of Shoshonis and Paiutes.
Second, this legislation, after the process has run its course and a Native Hawaiian governing entity is established, just like the tribal government, Walker River, that we have with the Paiute tribe, the bill reaffirms the special political/legal relationship between the U.S. Government and that entity, just like the Las Vegas Indian colony.
Third and perhaps more important, in the words of an editorial in Wednesday's New York Times, ``this legislation offers a chance for justice in Hawaii.''
Although arguments for why the Senate should address the legislation are crystal clear, I think the integrity of the U.S. Senate is on the line here. I think the integrity of the Senators who seek this opportunity merit attention. I have addressed myself to that.
The chance for justice in Hawaii--that is what this is all about. Hawaii is no different than Nevada. Native Hawaiians are no different than the Indians in Nevada.
Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2006. We must celebrate racial diversity in our Nation. Racial diversity defines the…
Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2006. We must celebrate racial diversity in our Nation. Racial diversity defines the cultural norms and values that make America the ``melting pot'' that is so amazing. America's foundation is built upon many diverse races and cultures uniting to become one Nation, but while we can celebrate those diverse cultures, we must remember that we are all Americans and we must work to bridge gaps, not widen them.
Every day millions of Americans pledge their allegiance to our flag. They stand for the freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution. One of the essential clauses of this pledge remains, ``one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' A source of our strength is our diversity, and still, despite our diversity, we are melded as one Nation, under God.
When I return to Wyoming, I often attend swearing in ceremonies. It is an honor to watch people become citizens of this great Nation. Swearing in ceremonies are moving experiences that I cherish. At a swearing in ceremony, people from every background and every nation come together to celebrate America. Every American should take the time to watch a swearing in ceremony because when they do, they will realize the privilege that comes with being an American citizen. They come in as citizens of India, China, Mexico, Germany, and many others, but they leave as Americans.
Although many citizens of this country practice and honor diverse traditions that are unique to their culture, one core similarity exists: we are all Americans. Racial diversity is important, but it should not be the rationale for the establishment of a separate sovereign government.
Wyoming is the home to the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Tribes on the Wind River Indian Reservation. As part of the United States, these tribes have been recognized for nearly 150 years as sovereign nations. The Eastern Shoshone community was granted sovereignty during the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1863 before Wyoming became a State. Over the years, other Native American and Alaskan tribes gained sovereignty by meeting the criteria laid out in our laws. Native Hawaiians now seek sovereignty similar to that of Native Americans and Alaskan Natives through this legislation.
While I understand their desire to be granted sovereign immunity, the facts and circumstances surrounding Native Hawaiians are different. It does not make sense to waive or change the requirements that others had to meet.
Our Government has never created an Indian tribe. Sovereignty has only been granted to preexisting tribes and only in special, rare circumstances after statehood.
In order to be federally recognized, a tribe must meet several criteria. A tribe must prove it existed and operated as a tribe for the past century. Additionally, the tribe must distinguish itself as a separate and distinct community both geographically and culturally. Finally, the tribe must have a preexisting political structure that is clear. Native Hawaiians do not meet these criteria.
A distinct community does not exist according to the standards outlined in the proposed legislation. Within the United States and the State of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians live integrated among all races.
During the ``fall'' of Queen Liliuokalani, a ``Native Hawaiian'' government was not present. All races coexisted under the reign of the monarchy. Non-natives even held high positions within the government.
In 1898, at the time of annexation, there was no political effort to treat Native Hawaiians similar to Alaska Natives or Native American tribes. The same held true when 94 percent of Hawaiians voted to become a State in 1959. Ninety-four percent of Hawaiians voted to become Americans. In fact, at that time, advocates of Hawaiian statehood emphasized the cohesive diversity, the ``melting pot'' nature of Hawaii.
In addition, in 1998, the State of Hawaii's Supreme Court brief from the case of Rice v. Cayetano expressed the government's belief that, ``The Tribal concept simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history.''
If the proposed legislation passes, the progress we have made over the past century to improve racial equality regresses. Instead of uniting the country, we divide it, and some of the darkest hours of this Nation occurred when people were separated because of race. This legislation is based solely on the ideology of race.
We are all Americans, and as such, we need to be united. Although I respect the desire of Native Hawaiians to be a federally recognized sovereign nation, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose S. 147.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005. On October 7, 2004, I introduced S. 2939, a bill to improve our…
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005.
On October 7, 2004, I introduced S. 2939, a bill to improve our ability to provide assistance to orphans and vulnerable children in developing countries. Because of the gravity and urgency of the growing AIDS orphans crisis, I am reintroducing my bill.
The unprecedented AIDS orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has profound
implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond the region. Sub-Saharan African nations stand to lose generations of educated and trained professionals who can contribute meaningfully to their countries' development. Orphaned children, many of whom are homeless, are more likely to resort to prostitution and other criminal behavior to survive. Most frighteningly, these uneducated, poorly socialized, and stigmatized young adults are extremely vulnerable to being recruited into criminal gangs, rebel groups, or extremist organizations that offer shelter and food and act as ``surrogate'' families. It is imperative that the international community respond to this crisis.
An estimated 110 million orphans live in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is rapidly expanding the orphan population. Currently an estimated 14 million children have been orphaned by AIDS, most of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. This number is projected to soar to more than 25 million by 2010. The pandemic is orphaning generations of African children and is compromising the overall development prospects of their countries.
Most orphans in the developing world live in extremely disadvantaged circumstances. Poor communities in the developing world struggle to meet the basic food, clothing, health care, and educational needs of orphans. Experts recommend supporting community-based organizations to assist these children. Such an approach enables the children to remain connected to their communities, traditions, rituals, and extended families.
My bill seeks to improve assistance to orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries. It would require the United States Government to develop a comprehensive strategy for providing such assistance and would authorize the President to support community-based organizations that provide basic care for orphans and vulnerable children.
Orphans are less likely to be in school, and more likely to be working full time. Yet only education can help children acquire the knowledge and develop the skills they need to build a better future.
For many children, the primary barrier to an education is the expense of school fees, uniforms, supplies, and other costs. My bill aims to improve enrollment and access to primary school education by supporting programs that reduce the negative impact of school fees and other expenses. It also would reaffirm our commitment to international school lunch programs. Studies have shown that school food programs provide an incentive for children to stay in school. School meals provide basic nutrition to children who otherwise do not have access to reliable food.
Many children who lose one or both parents often face difficulty in asserting their inheritance rights. Even when the inheritance rights of women and children are spelled out in law, such rights are difficult to claim and are seldom enforced. In many countries it is difficult or impossible for a widow--even if she has small children--to claim property after the death of her husband. This often leaves the most vulnerable children impoverished and homeless. My bill seeks to support programs that protect the inheritance rights of orphans and widows with children.
The AIDS orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond the region, affecting governments and people worldwide. Every 14 seconds another child is orphaned by AIDS. Turning the tide on this crisis will require a coordinated, comprehensive, and swift response. I am hopeful that Senators will join me in backing this legislation.
Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Canadian Waste Import Ban Act of 2005, to address the rapidly growing problem of Canadian waste shipments to Michigan. Michigan has been known for its…
Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Canadian Waste Import Ban Act of 2005, to address the rapidly growing problem of Canadian waste shipments to Michigan. Michigan has been known for its beautiful waters, lush forests, and now unfortunately as a top importer of international trash.
My colleagues may be surprised to learn that the biggest source of waste to Michigan is not from another State, but from our neighbor to the north, Canada. The rapid increase in waste shipments is stunning. In 2003, 180 trash trucks crossed the Ambassador and Blue Water bridges into Michigan. Today, that number has more than doubled to 415 trucks per day. You can see these trucks lined up for miles waiting to cross into Michigan, polluting the air and creating traffic congestions. The city of Toronto alone sends over 1 million tons of trash annually to Michigan.
This waste dramatically decreases Michigan's own landfill capacity, and has an incredible negative impact on Michigan's environment and the public health of its citizens. The waste also poses a tremendous homeland security threat, as trucks loaded with garbage are harder for Customs agents to inspect than traditional cargo.
I fought and was successful in the installation of radiation equipment at these crossings. As a result of this equipment, the Blue Water Bridge port director reports that three to four Canadian trash trucks per week are being turned back at the border for containing dangerous radioactive materials such as medical waste. But we need the trash shipments to stop completely.
Michigan already has protections contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada, but are being ignored. Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste across the Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government notification. The
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as the designate authority for the United States would receive the notification and then would have 30 days to consent or object to the shipment. Not only have these notification provisions not been enforced, but the EPA has indicated that they would not object to the municipal waste shipments.
Michigan citizens have spoken loud and clear on this issue. More than 165,000 people signed my on-line petition urging the EPA to use their power to stop the Canadian trash shipments. Residents from all 83 Michigan counties have signed the petition--an unprecedented response. I've presented these signatures to both former EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. But despite these efforts, EPA has not stopped these trash shipments.
That is why I'm reintroducing my bill today. The Canadian Waste Import Ban of 2005 would stop the Canadian trash shipments by placing an immediate Federal ban on the importation of Canadian municipal solid waste. Any State that wishes to receive Canadian trash can opt out of the ban by giving notice to the EPA. The ban will be in place until the EPA enforces the notice and consent provision contained in the binational agreement.
This legislation would also give Michigan residents the protection they deserve from these shipments. In enforcing the agreement, the EPA would have to obtain the consent of the receiving State before consenting to a Canadian municipal solid waste shipment. So if the State of Michigan says no, the EPA must object to the trash shipment.
The EPA would also have to consider the impact of the shipment on homeland security, environment, and public health. These waste shipments should no longer be accepted without an examination of how it will affect the health and safety of Michigan families.
Michigan residents deserve the protections provided by this international agreement and should be provided the ability to stop these dangerous and unhealthy trash shipments. I urge my colleagues to support the Canadian Waste Import Ban of 2005.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Mikulski, a bill that would designate Poland as a program country under the Visa Waiver Program under section 217 of the Immigration…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Mikulski, a bill that would designate Poland as a program country under the Visa Waiver Program under section 217 of the Immigration Nationality Act.
As we celebrate an historic period with the first Iraqi elections in over fifty years, it is important to appreciate the sacrifices our allies have made to make such an event possible. America must continue to solidify the bond with its allies by assisting their governments and citizens when possible. This legislation brings us closer to a country that has been by our side through a time of war and continues to be a partner in the global freedom.
Since the founding of the United States, Poland has proven its steadfast dedication to the causes of freedom and friendship with the United States. This has been exemplified by the brave actions of Polish patriots such as Casimir Pulaski and Tadeusz Kosciuszco during the American Revolution. Polish history provides pioneering examples of democracy and religious tolerance, and this is reflected in their constitution that states, ``Freedom of faith and religion shall be ensured to everyone.''
Poland's revolt from the Soviet Union's communist stranglehold is a more recent example of their dedication to freedom. They are a prime example of Ronald Reagan's vision to end the Cold War. Last year, when I met Lech Walesa, the tenacious leader of Poland's Solidarity movement and former President of Poland, I was reminded of the profound struggle the country endured to bring democracy to their people.
And their commitment to preserving freedom and global security continues today. On March 12, 1999, Poland became a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This was followed by admission into the European Union on May 1, 2004. Poland was a staunch ally to the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom and has committed 2,300 troops to help with the ongoing peace efforts in Iraq.
In addition to Poland's efforts as a global ally, its people have contributed greatly within our borders. Nearly nine million people of Polish ancestry live in the United States. Polish immigrants have played an integral role in the success of industry and agriculture in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States.
Currently, the United States administers the Visa Waiver Program to citizens of twenty-seven countries. The program allows citizens from Visa Waiver Program countries to visit the United States as tourists, and Poland has earned the right to participate. I believe Poland deserves to be the twenty-eighth country to participate in the program. The 100,000 Polish citizens who visit the United States annually must currently pay a $100 fee to apply for a visa. Many of these applicants are visiting family, often for wedding celebrations or funerals. In an expression of good faith, in 1991 the Polish government unilaterally repealed the visa requirement for U.S. citizens traveling to Poland for less than 90 days.
I am aware of past concerns about Polish visa refusal rates, but a closer look shows that refusal rates can be an inaccurate measure because they are based on decisions made by a very short interview process rather than the actual behavior of non-immigrants. Often, refusal rates do not reflect the propensity of nationals from that country to overstay their visas. More importantly, Poland's refusal rate does not reflect a high propensity for terrorism. The State Department has given no indication that the potential for terrorism in Poland significantly exceeds that of the 27 countries currently participating in the Visa Waiver
Program. Please be assured that I am sensitive to arguments that have concerns about our national security at the core. However, our past history with Polish citizens visiting the United States does not favor this argument.
For all Polish citizens and Polish Americans, I ask through this legislation that Poland be deemed a designated program country for the purposes of the Visa Waiver Program. I ask my colleagues for their support.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Responsible Education About Life or ``REAL'' Act along with my cosponsors Senators Kennedy, and Mrs. Murray. The REAL Act aims to reduce adolescent pregnancy,…
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Responsible Education About Life or ``REAL'' Act along with my cosponsors Senators Kennedy, and Mrs. Murray.
The REAL Act aims to reduce adolescent pregnancy, HIV rates, and other sexually transmitted diseases, by providing federal funds for comprehensive sex education in schools. Comprehensive sex education is medically accurate, age appropriate, education that includes information about both contraception and abstinence. It is an approach that doesn't hide important information from our kids.
For years, taxpayer dollars have been flooded into unproven ``abstinence-only'' programs--while no federal program is dedicated to comprehensive sex education. Under the Bush Administration, federal support for ``abstinence-only'' education has expanded rapidly.
The proof is in the numbers. In fiscal year 2004 the federal government spent $138 million dollars on ``abstinence only'' programs. In fiscal year 2005 the federal government increased funding for these programs by $30 million dollars. This year President Bush is asking for $206 million dollars for ``abstinence only'' education--a 50 percent increase over the 2004 funding level. Would you like to know how much money has the government devoted to comprehensive sex education programs over this same time? Zero dollars.
Much of the taxpayer funds going to ``abstinence-only'' programs are essentially being wasted. Teens need information, not censorship. ``Abstinence-only'' education only tells young people half the story, and they need the full picture. These programs are not getting the job done.
After years of ``abstinence only'' programs, the United States still has the--highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. The American public knows what works. Parents do not want sexual education programs limited to abstinence in schools. Even the Heritage Foundation had to admit this when their own poll showed that ``75 percent of parents want teens to be taught about both abstinence and contraception.'' Other polls show numbers as high as 93 percent in support of high school programs that include information about contraception.
The REAL Act also has the support of the National Education Association (NEA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Nurses Association (ANA), the Child Welfare League of America and more than 130 other medical and professional organizations. It is a fact that teenagers who receive sex education that includes discussion of contraception are more likely to delay sexual activity than those who receive abstinence-only education. Comprehensive sex education simply works better.
The stakes are high: of the 19 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases every year in the United States, almost half of them strike young people between the ages of 15 and 24. And each year in the United States, about 20,000 young people are newly infected with HIV.
These aren't just numbers. These are our sons and daughters whose health and well-being are jeopardized when ideology comes before sound public policy. That is why we are introducing this legislation today. It's time for a more balanced approach; it's time to protect out kids, and it's time to get REAL. Our bill authorizes $206 million per year in federal funds to states for comprehensive sexual education programs.
The REAL Act is step in a more effective direction. It brings sex education up-to-date in a way that will reflect the serious issues and real life situations millions of young people find themselves in every year. Young people have a right to accurate and complete information that could protect their health and even save their lives. I urge my colleagues to support the REAL Act and make it possible to give young people the tools to make safe and responsible decisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Bill Text
2 versions available
[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 364 Reported in Senate (RS)]
Calendar No. 161
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 364
[Report No. 109-102]
To establish a program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to integrate Federal coastal and ocean mapping
activities.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 10, 2005
Mr. Inouye (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Lott, Ms. Cantwell, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Gregg)
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
July 13, 2005
Reported by Mr. Stevens, with amendments
[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To establish a program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to integrate Federal coastal and ocean mapping
activities.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Ocean and Coastal Mapping
Integration Act''.
SEC. 2. INTEGRATED OCEAN AND COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration shall establish a program to develop, in
coordination with the Interagency Committee on Ocean and Coastal
Mapping, a coordinated and comprehensive Federal ocean and coastal
mapping plan for the Great Lakes and Coastal State waters, the
territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf
of the United States that enhances ecosystem approaches in decision-
making for conservation and management of marine resources and
habitats, establishes research priorities, supports the siting of
research and other platforms, and advances ocean and coastal science.
(b) Program Parameters.--In developing such a program, the
Administrator shall work with the Committee to--
(1) identify all Federal and federally-funded programs
conducting shoreline delineation and ocean or coastal mapping,
noting geographic coverage, frequency, spatial coverage,
resolution, and subject matter focus of the data and location
of data archives;
(2) promote cost-effective, cooperative mapping efforts
that incorporate policies for private sector contracting among
all Federal agencies conducting ocean and coastal mapping
agencies by increasing data sharing, developing data
acquisition and metadata standards, and facilitating the
interoperability of in situ data collection systems, data
processing, archiving, and distribution of data products;
(3) facilitate the adaptation of existing technologies as
well as foster expertise in new ocean and coastal mapping
technologies, including through research, development, and
training conducted in cooperation with the private sector,
academia, and other non-Federal entities;
(4) develop standards and protocols for testing innovative
experimental mapping technologies and transferring new
technologies between the Federal Government and the private
sector or academia;
(5) centrally archive, manage, and distribute data sets as
well as provide mapping products and services to the general
public in service of statutory requirements;
(6) develop specific data presentation standards for use by
Federal, State, and other entities that document locations of
federally-permitted activities, living and nonliving resources,
marine ecosystems, sensitive habitats, submerged cultural
resources, undersea cables, offshore aquaculture projects, and
any areas designated for the purposes of environmental
protection or conservation and management of living marine
resources; and
(7) identify the procedures to be used for coordinating
Federal data with State and local government programs.
SEC. 3. INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON OCEAN AND COASTAL MAPPING.
(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established an Interagency
Committee on Ocean and Coastal Mapping.
(b) Membership.--The Committee shall be comprised of senior
representatives from Federal agencies with ocean and coastal mapping
and surveying responsibilities. The representatives shall be high-
ranking officials of their respective agencies or departments and,
whenever possible, the head of the portion of the agency or department
that is most relevant to the purposes of this Act. Membership shall
include senior representatives from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the Chief of Naval Operations, the United
States Geological Survey, Minerals Management Service, National Science
Foundation, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, United States Army
Corps of Engineers, United States Coast Guard, Environmental Protection
Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, and other appropriate Federal agencies
involved in ocean and coastal mapping.
(c) Chairman.--The Committee shall be chaired by the representative
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The chairman
may create subcommittees chaired by any member agency of the committee.
Working groups may be formed by the full Committee to address issues of
short duration.
(d) Meetings.--The Committee shall meet on a quarterly basis, but
subcommittee or working group meetings shall meet on an as-needed
basis.
(e) Coordination.--The committee <DELETED>should </DELETED>shall
coordinate activities, when appropriate, with--
(1) other Federal efforts, including the Digital Coast,
Geospatial One-Stop, and the Federal Geographic Data Committee;
(2) international mapping activities; <DELETED>and
</DELETED> (3) States and user groups through workshops and
other appropriate <DELETED>mechanisms. </DELETED>mechanisms;
and
(4) representatives of the private sector.
SEC. 4. NOAA INTEGRATED MAPPING INITIATIVE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the
Committee, shall develop and submit to the Congress a plan for an
integrated ocean and coastal mapping initiative within the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(b) Plan Requirements.--The plan shall--
(1) identify and describe all ocean and coastal mapping
programs within the agency, including those that conduct
mapping or related activities in the course of existing
missions, such as hydrographic surveys, ocean exploration
projects, living marine resource conservation and management
programs, coastal zone management projects, and ocean and
coastal science projects;
(2) establish priority mapping programs and establish and
periodically update priorities for geographic areas in
surveying and mapping, as well as minimum data acquisition and
metadata standards for those programs;
(3) encourage the development of innovative ocean and
coastal mapping technologies and applications through research
and development through cooperative or other agreements at
joint centers of excellence and with the private sector;
(4) document available and developing technologies, best
practices in data processing and distribution, and leveraging
opportunities with other Federal agencies, non-governmental
organizations, and the private sector;
(5) identify training, technology, and other resource
requirements for enabling the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's programs, ships, and aircraft to support a
coordinated ocean and coastal mapping program;
(6) identify a centralized mechanism or office for
coordinating data collection, processing, archiving, and
dissemination activities of all such mapping programs within
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
including--
(A) designating primary data processing centers to
maximize efficiency in information technology
investment, develop consistency in data processing, and
meet Federal mandates for data accessibility; and
(B) designating a repository that is responsible
for archiving and managing the distribution of all
ocean and coastal mapping data to simplify the
provision of services to benefit Federal and State
programs; and
<DELETED>(6) </DELETED>(7) set forth a timetable for
implementation and completion of the plan, including a schedule
for periodic Congressional progress reports, and
recommendations for integrating approaches developed under the
initiative into the interagency program.
(c) NOAA Joint Ocean and Coastal Mapping Centers.--The
Administrator is authorized to maintain and operate up to 3 joint ocean
and coastal mapping centers, including a joint hydrographic center,
which shall be co-located with an institution of higher education. The
centers shall serve as hydrographic centers of excellence and are
authorized to conduct activities necessary to carry out the purposes of
this Act, including--
(1) research and development of innovative ocean and
coastal mapping technologies, equipment, and data products;
(2) mapping of the United States outer continental shelf;
(3) data processing for non-traditional data and uses;
(4) advancing the use of remote sensing technologies, for
related issues, including mapping and assessment of essential
fish habitat and of coral resources, ocean observations and
ocean exploration; and
(5) providing graduate education in ocean and coastal
mapping sciences for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Commissioned Officer Corps, personnel of other
agencies with ocean and coastal mapping programs, and civilian
personnel.
(d) NOAA Report.--The Administrator shall continue developing a
strategy for expanding contracting with private entities to minimize
duplication and take maximum advantage of private sector capabilities
in fulfilling the Administration's mapping and charting
responsibilities. Within 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall transmit a report describing the strategy
developed under this subsection to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee
on Resources.
SEC. 5. INTERAGENCY PROGRAM REPORTING.
No later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act,
and bi-annually thereafter, the Chairman of the Committee shall
transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Resources
a report detailing progress made in implementing the provisions of this
Act, including--
(1) an inventory of ocean and coastal mapping data, noting
the metadata, within the territorial seas and the exclusive
economic zone and throughout the continental shelf of the
United States, noting the age and source of the survey and the
spatial resolution (metadata) of the data;
(2) identification of priority areas in need of survey
coverage using present technologies;
(3) a resource plan that identifies when priority areas in
need of modern ocean and coastal mapping surveys can be
accomplished;
(4) the status of efforts to produce integrated digital
maps of ocean and coastal areas;
(5) a description of any products resulting from
coordinated mapping efforts under this Act that improve public
understanding of the coasts, oceans, or regulatory decision-
making;
(6) documentation of minimum and desired standards for data
acquisition and integrated metadata;
(7) a statement of the status of Federal efforts to
leverage mapping technologies, coordinate mapping activities,
share expertise, and exchange data;
(8) a statement of resource requirements for organizations
to meet the goals of the program, including technology needs
for data acquisition, processing and distribution systems;
(9) a statement of the status of efforts to declassify data
gathered by the Navy, the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency and other agencies to the extent possible without
jeopardizing national security, and make it available to
partner agencies and the public; and
(10) a resource plan for a digital coast integrated mapping
pilot project for the northern Gulf of Mexico that will--
(A) cover the area from the authorized coastal
counties through the territorial sea;
(B) identify how such a pilot project will leverage
public and private mapping data and resources, such as
the United States Geological Survey National Map, to
result in an operational coastal change assessment
program for the subregion; <DELETED>and
</DELETED> (11) the status of efforts to coordinate Federal
programs with State and local government programs and leverage
those <DELETED>programs. </DELETED>programs; and
(12) describes efforts of Federal agencies to increase
private sector contracting.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--In addition to the amounts authorized by section
306 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 (33 U.S.C.
892d), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to
carry out this Act--
(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(2) $26,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(3) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(4) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
(5) $45,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
(b) Joint Ocean and Coastal Mapping Centers.--Of the amounts
appropriated pursuant to subsection (a), the following amounts shall be
used to carry out section 4(c) of this Act:
(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(2) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
(3) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(4) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(5) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
(c) Interagency Committee.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, from amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2006
through 2013 to the Department of Defense, the Department of the
Interior, the Department of Homeland Security, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the head of each such department or agency may make
available not more than $10,000,000 per fiscal year to carry out
interagency activities under section 3 of this Act.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
(2) Coastal state.--The term ``coastal state'' has the
meaning given that term by section 304(4) of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453(4).
(3) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the
Interagency Ocean Mapping Committee established by section 3.
(4) Exclusive economic zone.--The term ``exclusive economic
zone'' means the exclusive economic zone of the United States
established by Presidential Proclamation No. 5030, of March 10,
1983.
(5) Ocean and coastal mapping.--The term ``ocean and
coastal mapping'' means the acquisition, processing, and
management of physical, biological, geological, chemical, and
archaeological characteristics and boundaries of ocean and
coastal areas, resources, and sea beds through the use of
acoustics, satellites, aerial photogrammetry, light and
imaging, direct sampling, and other mapping technologies.
(6) Territorial sea.--The term ``territorial sea'' means
the belt of sea measured from the baseline of the United States
determined in accordance with international law, as set forth
in Presidential Proclamation Number 5928, dated December 27,
1988.
Calendar No. 161
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 364
[Report No. 109-102]
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To establish a program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to integrate Federal coastal and ocean mapping
activities.
_______________________________________________________________________
July 13, 2005
Reported with amendments