A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Life Insurance Awareness Month".

Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senator Vitter, to introduce a bill to establish the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area in Louisiana. This legislation has particularly special meaning to those of us from Louisiana because of the importance of the cultural and natural resources of the Atchafalaya region to the Nation. It would establish a framework to help protect, conserve, and promote these unique natural, cultural, historical, and recreational resources of the region.

This legislation, which has been passed by the full Senate 3 times, once during the 107th Congress and twice during the 108th Congress, would establish a framework to help protect, conserve, and promote these unique natural, cultural, historical, and recreational resources of the region.

Specifically, the legislation would establish a National Heritage Area in Louisiana that encompasses thirteen parishes in and around the Atchafalaya Basin swamp, America's largest river swamp. The heritage area in south-central Louisiana stretches from Concordia parish to the north, where the Mississippi River begins to partially flow into the Atchafalaya River, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico in the south. The thirteen parishes are: St. Mary, Iberia, St. Martin, St. Landry, Avoyelles, Pointe Coupee, Iberville, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafayette, West Baton Rouge, Concordia, and East Baton Rouge. This boundary is the same area covered by the existing Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area.

This measure will appoint the existing Atchafalaya Trace Commission as the federally recognized ``local coordinating entity.'' The commission is composed of thirteen members with one representative appointed by each parish in the heritage area. Both the Atchafalaya Trace Commission and the Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area were created by the Louisiana Legislature a number of years ago. The Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area program currently receives some State funding, and already has staff working at the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, DCRT, under Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Blanco. State funds were used to create

the management plan for the heritage area, which followed ``feasibility analysis'' guidelines as recommended by the National Park Service. Therefore, the recently-completed management plan need only be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval as this legislation would recognize an existing local coordinating entity that will oversee the implementation of this plan. We are very proud that this state heritage area has already completed the complicated planning process, with participation of local National Park Service representatives, while using a standard of planning quality equal to that of existing national heritage areas. All at no cost to the Federal Government.

Please let me also emphasize that this legislation protects existing private property rights. It will not interfere with local land use ordinances or regulations, as it is specifically prohibited from doing so. Nor does this legislation grant any powers of real property acquisition to the local coordinating entity or heritage area program. In addition, the legislation does not impose any environmental rule or process or cause any change in Federal environmental quality standards different from those already in effect.

Heritage areas are based on cooperation and collaboration at all levels. This legislation remains true to the core concept behind heritage areas. The heritage area concept has been used successfully in various parts of our Nation to promote historic preservation, natural and cultural resource protection, heritage tourism and sustainable economic revitalization for both urban and rural areas. Heritage areas provide a flexible framework for government agencies, private organizations and businesses and landowners to work together on a coordinated regional basis. The Atchafalaya National Heritage Area will join the Cane River National Heritage Area to become the second National Heritage Area in Louisiana, ultimately joining the 23 existing National Heritage Areas around the Nation.

The initiative to develop the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area is an outgrowth of a grassroots effort to achieve multiple goals of this region. Most important among these is providing opportunities for the future, while at the same time not losing anything that makes this place so special. Residents from all over the region, local tourism agencies, State agencies such as the DCRT and the Department of Natural Resources, the State legislature, Federal agencies including the National Park Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, parish governments, conservation and preservation groups, local businesses and local landowners have all participated in this endeavor to make it the strong initiative it is today. These groups have been very supportive of the heritage area effort, and as time moves on, the heritage area will continue to involve more and more of the area's most important resource, its people.

I would also like to give you a brief overview of the resources that make this place significant to the entire country. Not only is it important to our Nation's history, but it is also critical to understanding America's future. The name of the place itself, Atchafalaya, comes from the American Indians and means ``long river.'' This name signifies the first settlers of the region, descendants of whom still live there today.

Other words come to mind in describing the Atchafalaya: mysterious, dynamic, multi-cultural, enchanting, bountiful, threatened and undiscovered. This region is one of the most complex and least understood places in Louisiana and the Nation. Yet, the stories of the Atchafalaya Heritage Area are emblematic of the broader American experience. Here there are opportunities to understand and witness the complicated, sometimes harmonious, sometimes adversarial interplay between nature and culture. The history of the United States has been shaped by the complex dance of its people working with, against, and for, nature. Within the Atchafalaya a penchant for adventure, adaptation, ingenuity, and exploitation has created a cultural legacy unlike anywhere else in the world.

The heart of the heritage area is the Atchafalaya Basin. It is the largest river swamp in the United States, larger than the more widely known Everglades or Okefenokee Swamp. The Atchafalaya is characterized by a maze of streams, and at one time was thickly forested with old- growth cypress and tupelo trees. The Basin provides outstanding habitat for a remarkably diverse array of wildlife, including the endangered American bald eagle and Louisiana black bear. The region's unique ecology teems with life. More than 85 species of fish; crustaceans, such as crawfish; wildlife, including alligators; an astonishing array of well over 200 species of birds, from waterfowl to songbirds; forest- dwelling mammals such as deer, squirrel, beaver and other commercially important furbearers all make their home here. Bottomland hardwood- dependent bird species breed here in some of the highest densities ever recorded in annual North American Breeding Bird Surveys. The Basin also forms part of the Mississippi Valley Flyway for migratory waterfowl and is a major wintering ground for thousands of these geese and ducks. In general, the Atchafalaya Basin has a significant proportion of North America's breeding wading birds, such as herons, egrets, ibises, and spoonbills. Some of the largest flocks of Wood Storks in North America summer here, and the southern part of the Basin has a healthy population of Bald Eagles nesting every winter.

The region's dynamic system of waterways, geology, and massive earthen guide levees reveals a landscape that is at once fragile and awesome. The geology and natural systems of the Atchafalaya Heritage Area have fueled the economy of the region for centuries. For decades the harvest of cypress, cotton, sugar cane, crawfish, salt, oil, gas, and Spanish moss, have been important sources of income for the region's residents. The crawfish industry has been particularly important to the lives of Atchafalaya residents and Louisiana has become the largest crawfish producer in the United States. Sport fishing and other forms of commercial fishing are important here, too, but unfortunately, natural resource extraction and a changing environment have drastically depleted many of these resources and forced residents to find new ways to make a living.

Over the past century, the Atchafalaya Basin has become a study of man's monumental effort to control nature. After the catastrophic Mississippi River flood of 1927 left thousands dead and millions displaced, the U.S. Congress decreed that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should develop an intricate system of levees to protect human settlements, particularly New Orleans. Today, the Mississippi River is caged within the walls of earthen and concrete levees and manipulated with a complex system of locks, barrages and floodgates. The Atchafalaya River runs parallel to the Mississippi and through the center of the Basin. In times of flooding the river basin serves as the key floodway in controlling floodwaters headed for the large population centers of Baton Rouge and New Orleans by diverting water from the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. This system was sorely tested in 1973 when floodwaters threatened to break through the floodgates and permanently divert the Mississippi River into the Atchafalaya. However, after this massive flood event, new land started forming off the coast. These new land formations make up the Atchafalaya Delta, and is the only significant area of new land being built in the United States. These vast amounts of Mississippi River sediment are also rapidly filling in the Basin itself, raising the level of land in certain areas of the basin and filling in lakes and waterways. And to demonstrate just how complex this ecosystem is, one only needs to realize that just to the East of the Delta, Terrebonne parish, also in the heritage area, is experiencing some of the most significant coastal land loss in the country.

Over the centuries, the ever-changing natural environment has shaped the lives of the people living in the Basin. Residents have profited from and been imperiled by nature. The popular cultural identity of the region is strongly associated with the Cajuns, descendants of the French-speaking Acadians who settled in south Louisiana after being deported by the British from Nova Scotia, formerly known as Acadia. Twenty-five hundred to three

thousand exiled Acadians repatriated in Louisiana where they proceeded to re-establish their former society. Today, in spite of complex social, cultural, and demographic transformations, Cajuns maintain a sense of group identity and continue to display a distinctive set of cultural expressions nearly 250 years after their exile from Acadia. Cajun culture has become increasingly popular outside of Louisiana. Culinary specialties adapted from France and Acadia such as etouffee, boudin, andouille, crepes, beignets and sauces thickened with roux, delight food lovers well beyond Louisiana's borders. Cajun music has also ``gone mainstream'' with its blend of French folk songs and ballads and instrumental dance music, and more recently popular country, rhythm-and-blues, and rock music influences. While the growing interest in Cajun culture has raised appreciation for its unique traditions, many of the region's residents are concerned about the growing commercialization and stereotyping that threatens to diminish the authentic Cajun ways of life.

While the Atchafalaya Heritage Area may be well known for its Cajun culture, there is an astonishing array of other cultures within these parishes. Outside of New Orleans, the Atchafalaya Heritage Area is the most racially and ethnically complex region of Louisiana, and has been so for many years. A long legacy of multiculturalism presents interesting opportunities to examine how so many distinct cultures have survived in relative harmony. There may be interesting lessons to learn from here as our Nation becomes increasingly heterogeneous. The cultural complexity of this region has created a rich tapestry of history and traditions, evidenced by the architecture, music, language, food and festivals unlike any place else. Ethnic groups of the Atchafalaya include: African-Americans, Black Creoles, Asians, Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Cajuns, Spanish Islenos, Italians, Scotch-Irish, and American Indian tribes such as the Attakapa, Chitimacha, Coushatta, Houma, Opelousa and Tunica-Biloxi.

This heritage area has a wealth of existing cultural, historic, natural, scenic, recreational and visitor resources on which to build. Scenic resources include numerous State Wildlife Management Areas and National Wildlife Refuges, as well as ten designated state scenic byways that fall partially or entirely within the heritage area. The Office of State Parks operates three historic sites in the heritage area, and numerous historic districts and buildings can be found in the region. There are also nine Main Street communities in the heritage area. Outdoor recreational resources include two State Parks and a multitude of waterways and bayous. Hunting, fishing, boating, and canoeing, and more recently birdwatching and cycling, are popular ways to experience the region. Various visitor attractions, interpretive centers and visitor information centers exist to help residents and tourists alike better understand and navigate many of the resources in the heritage area. Major roads link the heritage area's central visitor entrance points and large population centers, especially New Orleans. Much of the hospitality industry servicing the Atchafalaya exists around the larger cities of Baton Rouge, Lafayette and Houma. However, more and more bed and breakfasts and heritage accommodations, such as houseboat rentals, are becoming more numerous in the smaller towns and rural areas.

These are just some of the examples of the richness and significance of this region. This legislation will assist communities throughout this heritage area who are committed to the conservation and appropriate development of these assets. Furthermore, this legislation will bring a level of prestige and national and international recognition that this most special of places certainly deserves.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, One Hundred and Thirty Nine years ago, before the term Homeland Security was even coined, a group of men devoted themselves to securing the frontiers of this Nation. They protected Americans in their homes; they deterred hostile invaders, and they secured the blessings of liberty for a young country. Even more remarkable, they secured these blessings for others, while they could not fully enjoy them themselves.

I am referring to the Buffalo Soldiers. These brave men instituted a tradition of professional military service for African Americans that spans the greater part of American history. African American military service is as old as our nation. There were black soldiers during the revolution, a unit of free black men played a pivotal role in the Battle of New Orleans, and the exploits of African Americans during the Civil War have been captured in novels and on film. However, it was not until the Army Reorganization Act of 1866 that soldiering and service to country became a realistic option for African Americans seeking to improve their quality of life. In so doing, they raised the bar of freedom, and revealed the injustice of preventing the defenders of democracy from fully participating in it.

The City of New Orleans, and the State of Louisiana have a rich history. They have given more than their fair share of sons to the service of our Nation. Much of this history is commemorated throughout the State. Yet, these great sons of New Orleans remain unacknowledged in their home. For in Louisiana's great military tradition, surely one of its greatest military contributions were the 9th Cavalry Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment.

These two forces, recruited and organized in New Orleans, represent half of all the units of buffalo soldiers. The 9th Cavalry alone constituted 10% of all the American cavalry. Their list of adversaries reads like a who's who of the Old West--Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Poncho Villa. In movies, when settlers encounter Apaches, the cavalry always comes to the rescue. Yet how many times were the cavalry that rode over the horizon African American? Of course, the reality is that the Buffalo Soldiers comprised some of our nations most capable and loyal troops. Despite suffering the worst deprivations known to any American soldiers of the period, they had the lowest desertion rates in the Army. The 9th Cavalry was awarded 10 Congressional Medals of Honor, including a native Louisianan, Sgt. Emanuel Stance--a farmer from Carroll Parish.

For these reasons, I am offering legislation today along with Senator Vitter that would authorize the creation of a suitable memorial in New Orleans for these gallant soldiers. There is an excellent statue to the Buffalo Soldiers at Fort Leavenworth, KS. It commemorates the 10th Cavalry Regiment stationed there. However, I believe that these men deserve to be recognized in their home city. Furthermore, it should be in an a location where thousands of visitors will have the opportunity to come to appreciate the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers. I believe that the City of New Orleans is the perfect location.

We have made a number of changes to this legislation after consultations with the American Battle Monuments Commission. I believe these changes should address any concerns that they have expressed. Furthermore, we have an able and dedicated organization of individuals in the state who desperately want to see this project to completion. Last year, I had the pleasure of being in New Orleans with another of this Nation's great military heroes, Senator Daniel Inouye. We addressed a group of distinguished veterans from all around the state. Among them was George Jones, President of the Greater New Orleans Chapter of the Buffalo Soldiers Association. They have been working with Eddie Dixon, the artist for the beautiful Fort Leavenworth statute, to develop an appropriate memorial in the City of New Orleans for over a decade. This bill will fulfill that noble ambition.

This Nation has sadly found the need to say thank you to its servicemen and women after the fact on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, this is another. We are fortunate to have living memories of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments today. The regiments were not disbanded until the conclusion of World War Two, where they served with distinction. We should take this opportunity to honor these veterans, and in so doing, honor the principles of liberty, freedom and democracy for which they fought and sacrificed. They have given so much to their nation, we owe them this public expression of gratitude.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senator Vitter, to introduce the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve Boundary Adjustment Act of 2005. This bill was passed unanimously by the Senate during the 108th Congress.

The Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve was established in 1978 to preserve for present and future generations significant examples of the rich natural and cultural resources of Louisiana's Mississippi delta region. The park seeks to illustrate the influence of environment and history on the development of a unique regional culture. It is named for Jean Lafitte who was a pirate, or privateer as he like to be called, that fought alongside U.S. forces in the Battle of New Orleans at the end of the War of 1812. The park consists of six physically separate sites and a park headquarters located in New Orleans. The sites in Lafayette, Thibodaux and Eunice interpret the Acadian culture of the area. The Barataria Preserve, in Marrero, interprets the natural and cultural history of the uplands, swamps and marshlands of the region. Six miles southeast of New Orleans is the Chalmette Battlefield and National Cemetery, site of the 1815 Battle of New Orleans and the final resting place for soldiers from the Civil War, Spanish-American War, World Wars I and II and Vietnam. The park's visitor center, which is located in the historic French Quarter, interprets the history of New Orleans and diverse cultures of Mississippi delta region.

It is the Barataria site that is the focus of our attention today. The Bill before us would merely adjust the boundary of the Barataria preserve unit of Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve and by doing so protect a crucial component of one of the largest and most productive expanses of coastal wetlands in North America--coastal Louisiana or as they are known: America's Wetlands. The Barataria preserve is the only part of our coastal wetlands preserved in the National Park System. As we strive to find ways to stem the tide of coastal erosion in Louisiana, and bring about the restoration of wetlands already lost, it is equally important that we protect those areas that remain such as the Barataria preserve so that Americans can experience, first hand, the amazing beauty and fertility of Louisiana's bountiful coastal wetlands--the most threatened wetland ecosystem in the country--disappearing at a rate of 25 to 35 square miles a year. Located on the outskirts of New Orleans, where it is accessible not only to the people of New Orleans but also to the millions of tourists from around the world that visit New Orleans and south Louisiana, Barataria serves as an interpretive experience of this greatest of coastal wetlands.

This bill expands this national treasure without any cost to the Federal Government while preserving private property rights. It simply transfers to the Park over 3,000 acres of wetlands already in Federal ownership, already paid for by the American people. These lands, which are adjacent to the Preserve, became Federal as a result of the settlement by the Justice Department of two lawsuits brought by the landowners against Federal agencies. However, because these acres are not managed by the park, they are presently unavailable for public use. An Act of Congress is necessary to allow inclusion of these lands into a new boundary.

My bill does just that, opening these lands for canoeing, wildlife viewing, exploration, fishing, and hunting, all under the management and protection of the park service. The bill grants long-term protection to crucial resources that the Park Service has found suitable and feasible for inclusion within a new boundary through a 1996 boundary study.

The Park is immediately adjacent to the developed areas of the Westbank of Jefferson Parish along much of its boundary while the Barataria unit in particular is right next door to a hurricane levee. Making more of the park boundary contiguous with the levee

that divides developed land from undeveloped wetlands enhances opportunities for direct cooperation between these communities and the Park for management of shared concerns. These concerns include the routing of storm-water run-off; the discharge of treated sewage; estuarine water quality and its effects on fisheries and recreational uses; wetland restoration and mitigation; and a number of other problems and opportunities. The Park has worked with Jefferson Parish in seeking creative solutions to these problems and will continue to do so. The addition of these properties will only enhance their chances for success.

It is for all of these reasons that I am hopeful the Senate can approve of this measure in the near future. The expansion we seek in this Bill benefits us today as well as tomorrow.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act. Senator Akaka joins me in sponsoring this measure.

The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act was enacted into law in 1988, and has been reauthorized every 4 years since that time.

The Act provides authority for range of programs and services designed to improve the health care status of the Native people of Hawaii.

With the enactment of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act and the establishment of Native Hawaiian health care systems on most of the islands that make up the State of Hawaii, we have witnessed significant improvements in the health status of Native Hawaiians, but as the findings of unmet needs and health disparities set forth in this bill make clear, we still have a long way to go.

For instance, Native Hawaiians have the highest cancer mortality rates in the State of Hawaii--rates that are 21 percent higher than the rate for the total State male population and 64 percent higher than the rate for the total State female population. Nationally, Native Hawaiians have the third highest mortality rate as a result of breast cancer.

With respect to diabetes, in 2000, Native Hawaiians had the highest mortality rate associated with diabetes in the State--a rate which is 138 percent higher than the statewide rate for all racial groups.

When it comes to heart disease, the mortality rate of Native Hawaiians associated with heart disease is 68 percent higher than the rate for the entire State, and the mortality rate for hypertension is 84 percent higher than that for the entire State.

These statistics on the health status of Native Hawaiians are but a small part of the long list of data that makes clear that our objective of assuring that the Native people of Hawaii attain some parity of good health comparable to that of the larger U.S. population has not yet been achieved.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, almost ten years ago, I stood before you to introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''

That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.

Five years ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate and credible legal claim. Thereafter, by settlement stipulation, the United States has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to settle the claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of $1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after seven years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the court concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong. Ref. 94-1037X at 28 (Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000) (Report of Hearing Officer).

The bill I introduce today is to authorize the appropriation of those funds that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim. If enacted, this bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that has for far too long been denied.

For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian Pottawatomi.

The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the 18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, llinois, and Wisconsin. From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomis were repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain annuities to the Pottawatomi.

In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal the policy of removal--an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomis to cede the remainder of their traditional lands--some five million acres in and around the city of Chicago and remove themselves west. For years, the Pottawatomis steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics-- including threats of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomis to agree to cede their territory. Finally, those Pottawatomis who were present relented and on September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy-seven members of the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the ``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession.

In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the United States would give to the Pottawatomis 5 million acres of comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. But the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and unilaterally switched the land to five million acres in Iowa. The Treaty Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice would be

done.'' Treaty of Chicago, as amended, Article 4. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomis sent a delegation to evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was ``not fit for snakes to live on.''

While some Pottawatomis removed westward, many of the Pottawatomis-- particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the Treaty--refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to forcefully remove Pottawatomis who remained in the east--with devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed by mercenaries who were paid on a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas against their will and without their consent.

Knowing of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomis including most of those in the Wisconsin Band vigorously resisted forced removal. To avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Band ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments disclose that many Pottawatomis were forced to leave their homes without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes on their backs.

By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864 (13 Stat. 172) the Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be retained for their use in the United States Treasury. (H.R. Rep. No. 470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7, 1949). Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin Band.

In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas, the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario-- petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of annuities as required by the law and treaties. (Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th Cong., 2d Sess.) By the Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 380), the Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis that still remained in the East. In addition, the Congress ordered the Secretary to determine ``the[] [Wisconsin Bands] proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other moneys paid to or expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the claimant Indians have not shared, [and] the amount of such monies retained in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the clamant Indians as directed the provision of the Act of June 25, 1864.''

In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of Interior directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster documented 2007 Wisconsin Pottawatomis: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan and 1550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of annuities for the Pottawatomis in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339 and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. The Congress thereafter enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to satisfy most of money owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds.

Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing international matters of the period, including the intervention of World War I, the Pottawatomis then came to the U.S. Congress for redress of their claim.

In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA) granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis from both sides of the border--brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28 (Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823 (1950). The claim of the Wisconsin Band residing in the United States that was filed in the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445 (1983). The Court of Claims concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the American Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis for any monies not paid. Still the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional limits of the ICCA.

Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate and after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited day in court through the congressional reference process. The court has now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and equitable'' resolution to this claim.

The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150 years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing to admit when it has left unfulfilled an obligation and that the United States is willing to do what we can to see that justice--so long delayed is not now denied.

Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National Congress of American Indians (the oldest, largest and most- representative tribal organization here in the United States), the Assembly of First Nations (which includes all recognized tribal entities in Canada), and each and every of the Pottawatomi tribal groups that remain in the United States today.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Domenici to introduce legislation to allow a transfer of land to Rio Arriba County, NM from the Bureau of Land Management. The land is needed for County facilities, a cemetery for a local parish, and a new public school.

Rio Arriba County is in a difficult position; the needs of the rapidly increasing area population continue to increase but there is precious little land available to the County where they can locate necessary facilities. Fortunately, the County has worked with the BLM to find a parcel of land that each agrees will best serve the interests of the public if it is transferred to County ownership. Indeed, I am told that BLM would likely have handled this transfer administratively if they were not barred from doing so by the particular history of how this parcel came into federal ownership. I am unaware of any opposition to the transfer.

This bill will simply change the legal framework for the parcel so that the transfer can take place. I hope the Senate can act on this bill as quickly as possible so that Rio Arriba County can move forward to meet the pressing needs of the people there.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Domenici and Senator Kyl, I am pleased today to introduce the United States- Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act. This legislation is intended to address the significant challenges concerning water resources that exist along the U.S-Mexico border. Recognizing the importance of these issues to the States making up that border, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and California, the Senate passed this bill twice during the 108th Congress. With strong bipartisan, and now bicameral support, I hope we can act quickly to pass it once again so that it can be enacted into law at the earliest opportunity.

The genesis of this bill is a field hearing I conducted over three years ago during my tenure as the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The focus of that hearing was water resource issues developing along the U.S.-Mexico border. In particular, I was concerned that issues regarding the availability of future water supplies were growing, and could lead to conflict in the region. The testimony at that hearing made clear that consensus is lacking on how communities in the border region will address their future water needs. Most significant, I was struck by the lack of agreement on the long- term viability of future groundwater sources, many of which involve aquifers underlying both the United States and Mexico. Given the rapid population growth along the border, and the corresponding increase in demand for potable water, there is a strong need to gain a common and detailed understanding of our shared groundwater resources. A science- based understanding of the resource is the first step to avoid conflicts similar to the one arising in south Texas over Rio Grande water deliveries under the 1944 U.S.-Mexico treaty.

The United States-Mexico Trans-boundary Assessment Act is intended to address the lack of a binational consensus regarding water supplies along the border. It will do this by establishing a scientific program, involving the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Research Institutes, and appropriate authorities and other entities on both sides of the border, to comprehensively assess priority transboundary aquifers. Ultimately, the information and scientific tools developed under the program will be extremely valuable to State and local water resource managers in the border region. Of particular note, the analysis will include a search for new sources of water such as saline aquifers. Continued development of desalination technologies may lead to significant use of this untapped resource in the near future.

I understand that establishing this scientific program and accurately assessing our shared water resources is just a step towards developing the long-term plans and solutions that will help avoid future international disputes concerning scare water supplies. This small step, however, is an important one, and one with broad policy support. In its 6th Report on the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment, the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, an independent federal advisory committee managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recommended the initiation of a ``border-wide groundwater assessment program to systematically analyze priority trans-boundary aquifers.'' Also, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a January 2003 report of its U.S.-Mexico Binational Council, included as one of its recommendations that Mexico and the United States ``improve data collection, information gathering, and transparency as the first step to developing a long-term strategy for water management.''

Ultimately, an effective long-term strategy will have to be developed by the communities and other water users who reside along the border. Working with each other and their State water resource agencies, I believe successful strategies can be developed so long as the information upon which those plans are based is the most accurate possible. In that respect, the USGS, along with its State-based partners, have a strong and important role to play. The resources and criteria provided by this legislation will ensure that these organizations can fulfill that role which, in turn, will enhance the prospects of our border communities to be able to plan for their future in a manner ensuring their long-term viability and prosperity.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with 13 other Senators to introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service Preservation Act of 2005. I am pleased to have my colleague Senator Snowe as the principal cosponsor of the bill. Senator Snowe has been a long-time champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I appreciate her continued leadership on this important legislation. Senators Ben Nelson, Collins, Rockefeller, Harkin, Grassley, Jeffords, Schumer, Leahy, Clinton, Pryor, Levin, and Specter are also cosponsors of the bill.

Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation could continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all.

Our bill is very simple. It preserves Congress' intent in the Essential Air Service program by repealing a provision in the 2003 FAA reauthorization bill that would for the first time require communities to pay for their commercial air service. The legislation that imposed mandatory cost sharing on communities to retain their commercial air service had been stricken from both the House and Senate versions of the FAA reauthorization bill, but was reinserted by conferees. I believe that any program that forces communities to pay to continue to receive their commercial air service could well be the first step in the total elimination of scheduled air service for many rural communities.

Two times since mandatory cost sharing was enacted Congress has blocked it from being implemented. For fiscal years 2004 and 2005, a bipartisan group of senators included language in the Department of Transportation's appropriations act that bars the use of funds to implement any mandatory cost sharing program. This bill would simply make Congress' ongoing ban permanent.

All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system.

The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in thirty-four states. EAS supports an additional 33 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and the continuing financial turndown in the aviation industry, particularly among commuter airlines, about 28 additional communities have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 2001.

In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the state's business center and largest city.

I believe this ill-conceived proposal requiring cities to pay to continue to have commercial air service could not come at a worse time for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining tax revenues.

As I understand it, the mandatory cost-sharing requirements in the FAA reauthorization bill could affect communities in as many as 22 states. Based on an analysis by my staff, the individual cities that could be affected are as follows:

Alabama--Muscle Shoals; Arizona--Prescott, Kingman;

Arkansas--Hot Springs, Harrison, Jonesboro; Colorado--Pueblo;

Georgia--Athens; Iowa--Fort Dodge, Burlington; Kansas--

Salina; Kentucky--Owensboro; Maine--Augusta, Rockland;

Michigan--Iron Mt.; Mississippi Laurel; Missouri--Joplin, Ft.

Leonard Wood; New Hampshire--Lebanon; New Mexico--Hobbs,

Alamogordo, Clovis; New York--Watertown, Jamestown,

Plattsburgh; Oklahoma--Ponca City, Enid; Pennsylvania--

Johnstown, Oil City, Bradford, Altoona; South Dakota--

Brookings, Watertown; Tennessee--Jackson; Texas--Victoria;

Vermont--Rutland; Washington--Moses Lake

As I see it, the choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the Essential Air Service Program today, we could soon see the end of all commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital resources that help link rural communities to the national and global aviation system. Our bill will preserve the essential air service program and help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America. Congress is already on record opposing mandatory cost sharing. I hope all Senators will once again join us in opposing this attack on rural America.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am re-introducing today a bill that was on the legislative calendar of the 108th Congress when it adjourned in December. The Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act is intended to build operational readiness in the civilian agencies to improve our nation's capacity to carry out post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction missions.

Until very recently, the concept of ``nation building'' was considered to be pejorative by many Members of Congress and government officials. The foreign policy orthodoxy of both parties was skeptical of missions that entailed long-term peacekeeping or stabilization commitments. If military force was necessary, most policymakers believed it should be used only for relatively brief periods followed by rapid withdrawal.

But experience has taught us that this approach rarely can be accommodated if we are serious about protecting our own security in an age of terrorism. We have seen how terrorists can exploit nations afflicted by lawlessness and desperate circumstances. They seek out such places to establish training camps, recruit new members, and tap into a global black market in weapons technology. If we are to deny sanctuaries to terrorists, we must be involved in post-conflict stabilization.

With this in mind, the Foreign Relations Committee took up the issue of how best to organize and prepare for post-conflict missions. Well over a year ago, we held our first bipartisan roundtable that brought together some of the best minds from inside and outside of government to consider this issue. From this process, we developed the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act of 2004. I introduced this legislation with Senators Biden and Hagel, and the Committee passed it unanimously. The purpose of our bill is to establish a more robust civilian capability to respond quickly and effectively to post-conflict situations or other complex emergencies. The bill puts the State Department at the center of the civilian reconstruction and stabilization effort, while coordination between State and Defense would continue at the NSC level.

The Defense Science Board (DSB), which recently recommended a similar strengthening of stabilization and reconstruction capacity in the Defense Department, endorsed our legislation. On January 26, I introduced S. 192, new legislation that took the DSB recommendations and provided the executive branch the necessary authorities to carry them out. It calls upon the Secretary of Defense to take immediate action to strengthen the role and capabilities of the Department of Defense for carrying out stabilization and reconstruction activities as well as to support the development of core competencies in other departments and agencies, principally the Department of State. The bill has been referred to the Senate Armed Service Committee for that Committee's consideration.

While recognizing the critical challenges that our military has undertaken with skill and courage in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we must acknowledge that certain non-security missions will be better served in the future by a more organized civilian response. Our post-conflict efforts frequently have had a higher than necessary military profile. This is not the result of a Pentagon power grab or institutional fights. Rather, the military has led post-conflict operations primarily because it is the only agency capable of mobilizing sufficient personnel and resources for these tasks. As a consequence, military resources have been stretched and deployments of military personnel have been extended beyond expectations. If we can improve the capabilities of the civilian agencies, they can take over many of the non-security missions that have burdened the military.

In re-introducing the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act'' in the 109th Congress, I am well aware of the impact it has already had on both the debate on this issue and developments to date. In fact, some initiatives contained in the legislation have moved forward without its having been enacted. My Senate colleagues on the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee agreed with the need to provide an emergency conflict response fund for stabilization and reconstruction crises. And the Commerce, Justice, State appropriators in both the Senate and the House agreed with the need to establish a new office at the State Department to take the lead in organizing our civilian efforts. Indeed, an Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization has now been organized and a highly capable coordinator named. At her confirmation hearings, Dr. Rice demonstrated detailed knowledge of the Office and its work. I am confidant that she has already embraced the Department's role as a core mission and will work to support the Office with appropriate funding and the kind of Department-wide backing and support from management that it will need to do its job.

So why continue to pursue the legislation? It is still important to seek enactment because the legislation provides a permanent basis in law for the established office as well as new authorities that the Department will need to be successful.

The Bush Administration's action on this issue demonstrates its ability to recalibrate policy and organization to address a changing world. We know that the President will continue to provide leadership in organizing the U.S. government for this mission. As demonstrated by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote of 19-0, and by actions taken by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary and the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, there is significant support in the Congress for his work and for the foresight he is already demonstrating.

The new Office, headed by Carlos Pascual, is doing a government-wide inventory of the civilian assets that might be available for stabilization and reconstruction tasks. It is also pursuing an idea proposed in our bill of a Readiness Reserve to enable rapid mobilization of post-conflict stabilization personnel. It will work closely with the Secretary to assist in the coordination of policy, the preparation and management of response, and in developing cooperative arrangements with foreign countries, international and regional organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector organizations.

I am hopeful that the Office also will develop the concept of a 250- person active duty Response Readiness Corps that is contained in the legislation. In Army terms, that is less than a small battalion of well-trained people--a modest but vigorous force-multiplier that would greatly improve our nation's stabilization capacity. This Corps would be composed of State Department and USAID employees who have the experience and technical skills to manage stabilization and reconstruction tasks in a hostile environment.

Secretary Rice has been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of enhancing standing civilian capacity to respond to post conflict situations. In answer to one of my questions during the confirmation process, she said: ``Creating a strong U.S. Government stabilization and reconstruction capacity is an Administration national security priority.''

She asserted that ``experience has shown that we must have the capacity to manage 2 to 3 stabilization and reconstruction operations concurrently. That means [we need] staff in Washington and in the field to manage and deliver quality programs.''

Dr. Rice is prepared to make the State Department an effective inter- agency leader as it should be--in post-conflict operations. I look forward to working closely with her on this effort. I consider this new mission to be one of the most important long-term defenses that the State Department can mount against future acts of terrorism.

Mr. President, I am here to introduce legislation and to talk about an issue that my colleagues have heard me speak about on numerous occasions during the course of the past two years, frequently at some length. That issue is overtime pay for American workers.

It is a subject I feel deeply about. It has become very clear to me that Iowans feel very deeply about it, as well. Working families across the country feel deeply about it.

I know that is true because people approach me and tell me what overtime pay means to them and their families. I have become associated with this fight here in Congress over protecting overtime pay, so when people recognize me, they very often will approach me and tell me a little bit about themselves and why they support my efforts on this issue. Many of them even become emotional about it.

Why is that? Why do people feel so strongly? For some, it is a simple matter of fairness and valuing work. They believe that receiving time- and-a-half pay when they put in more than 40 hours of work in a week is fair because if they are going to give up their premium time--hours beyond a normal workweek--then their employer should provide them with premium pay. It is simple fairness. Of course, they might also rely on that premium pay as a substantial part of their income. That is a benefit of valuing work fairly. They make more money.

Most people making overtime pay are not extremely affluent, so they are probably spending a lot of that extra income, putting it right into the local economy. That is therefore a further benefit to the economy.

Other people, to tell the truth, would rather not work a lot of overtime hours. They believe a 40-hour workweek is a full workweek.

That is what the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, did when we passed it in 1938. It established the principle of a 40-hour workweek in law by saying that employers need to pay extra when they work their employees longer than that. The time-and-a-half rule tends to discourage employers from requiring their employees to work longer than 40 hours, and many people value the law for that reason. They want to keep their premium time for themselves. They want to spend their premium time doing leisure activities or performing important family duties.

In 1938, our government decided that the 40-hour workweek was important to Americans. Look in any economic history book. It is treated as a fundamental and valuable principle in our economy. Overtime pay rewards work, and it reduces exploitation. It protects ``premium time'' for working men and women.

The 40-hour workweek says: Human beings are more than just the work they do. It says, the progress of technology can allow us to enjoy a good standard of living and quality of life without spending all of our hours toiling and laboring.

The 40-hour workweek also creates jobs. Requiring time-and-a half pay for overtime work encourages employers to hire more workers, rather than requiring additional hours of work from existing employees. Franklin Roosevelt cited this as a rationale when he signed the FLSA into law.

In 1933, probably for all the reasons I have just mentioned, the United States Senate voted 53 to 30 to set a cap for hours in a workweek. The number of hours was 30. The Senate voted to cap the workweek in the United States at 30 hours. Those were extremely difficult times economically, but the Senate of 70 years ago nonetheless placed a greater value on quality time spent off the job than they did increasing productivity with longer workweeks.

The Bush rules are deeply flawed. They make millions of modest-income and moderate-income American workers vulnerable to losing their eligibility for overtime pay, broadening the categories of workers that are ineligible for overtime protections--often in response to specific requests from industries.

If overtime is free to the employer, it is going to be overused. A study done by the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University showed that only 20 percent of the workers eligible for overtime work more than 40 hours a week, but 44 percent of workers who are exempt from overtime pay work overtime.

Several months ago, three former career DoL officials released a report after having done an in-depth review of these rule changes. Their analysis should be read by all to whom the issue of overtime is important.

These were not just any three former DoL officials. These were the top three people who administered these regulations over the course of the last two decades. They speak with enormous credibility on this issue.

These career employees have said that ``in every instance where DoL has made substantive changes to the existing rules, it has weakened the criteria for overtime exemptions and thereby expanded the reach and scope of the exemptions.'' This comes from people who were elevated to their high positions within DoL during the Reagan administration. The fact that they say these new rules are bad for the American worker in all ways but one ought to tell us something.

All of my colleagues are well aware that I led fights on the Senate floor during the last Congress to block or repeal the Department of Labor's FLSA overtime rule changes. Despite the fact that Congress voted 6 times during that period to protect workers' overtime by blocking the new rules, the administration insisted on ignoring the will of Congress. The new rules went into effect on August 23 of last year.

The bill I am introducing today would simply allow any workers who were entitled to overtime before the new rules took effect last August to retain their overtime rights. It makes ineffective those portions of the new rules that allow employers to take overtime eligibility away from workers who were eligible before the new rules took effect.

Secondly, my bill would also increase the minimum salary threshold. The minimum salary threshold that helps define overtime eligibility had not been raised since 1975 before the Bush administration raised it to $23,660. The administration did not raise it high enough, and millions of workers who should be covered are not covered due to this inadequacy. This bill will increase the number of workers covered by overtime protections by raising the minimum salary threshold to $30,712--to correspond with the increase in workers' wages since 1975. The bill also contains language that requires the salary threshold be adjusted annually to reflect and keep pace with increases in inflation.

American workers deserve an iron-clad guarantee that their overtime rights are safe. That is what the bipartisan bill I am introducing today accomplishes. It repeals any provisions of the new rules that took effect last August that weaken overtime protections, and it indexes the minimum salary threshold annually to avoid future loss of overtime protections due to inflation. I thank the 13 of my colleagues who have agreed to cosponsor this for their support, and I look forward to adding more.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.