Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I wanted to have a minute before to explain the lay of the land.

Madam President, for the interest of all Members, we have been working now since Monday to pass a technical corrections bill, which, it seems to me, should have been passed very quickly. It basically makes some corrections to the last big highway and transit bill so certain projects that have been held up for technical reasons can go forward, and others that weren't ready, pushed aside, and another can go forward. This will unleash about a billion dollars' worth of important programs for our Nation.

These projects have been vetted, and they have been posted on the Web page of the committee, as we must do according to our new ethics rules. We are very pleased it looks like we might be able to wrap this up in the next few hours.

As far as I am concerned, we are ready to vote. We have the Coburn amendment and the Boxer amendment, which deal with a real problem that occurred at some point during the SAFETEA-LU consideration years ago. We have corrected the problem in the bill. We want to now have some type of investigation to find out exactly what went wrong and if there were any crimes committed. There were two options. Senator Coburn is setting up a complicated select committee of the House and Senate. We believe strongly that it creates constitutional problems, and we think it might interfere with a Justice Department investigation.

And then Senator Reid had recommended, I think a far better way to get at the problem, which is a Justice Department investigation. I have written an amendment to go along with that. We are hoping to vote on that and then, hopefully, get to a cloture vote and final passage.

So that is the lay of the land, as best I see it. I wish I had more control over this at the moment. If I did, we would be voting in 5 minutes on the whole package. Until then, I will see you as soon as we have an agreement and, hopefully, we will get this matter done today.

I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order to H.R. 1195, and that at 3:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to Boxer amendment No. 4539, and that the amendment be modified to be to amendment No. 4146; to be followed by a vote in relation to Coburn amendment No. 4538, and that Coburn amendment No. 4540 be withdrawn once this agreement is entered; that each of those two amendments be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold, and that if neither achieves that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that if either or both achieve the 60-vote threshold, that it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and upon disposition of these listed amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Boxer substitute, amendment No. 4146; that if cloture is invoked on amendment No. 4146, then the substitute, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, and the bill then read a third time; and without further intervening action or debate the Senate proceed to vote on passage of H.R. 1195, as amended; that the cloture motion on the bill be withdrawn; provided further that after the first vote, all subsequent votes in the sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, because we need to move this bill along. There are 500 important projects in it. I have colleagues who want to add more projects. I want to say, for the benefit of everyone, there are some very legitimate technical corrections that still need to be done. I have committed to my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican--I have spoken to Senator Lincoln, Senator Landrieu, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Hutchison, only a few moments ago--that our committee, myself working with Senator Inhofe and our colleagues, is going to come up with a follow-on technical corrections bill with the time to ensure it is put together right. We do have some different ethics rules these days. We want to make sure we vet everything and everything is put up on the Web site. We have a number of very important technical corrections still to be done, but we are going to do it in the next 3 weeks in committee. We look forward to it.

I read a very complex unanimous consent request, and I don't think anyone within the sound of my voice could possibly follow all of it. So I thought in plain English, for the good of myself as well as my colleagues, I would say where we are. We are going to have a couple of votes on the issue of Coconut Road, which is a real problem for us, and it has been straightened out in this bill. We fix the problem. But there are colleagues who want to have an investigation, and we have two alternatives. One is the Coburn amendment which sets up what I consider a very complicated special select committee with Members from both bodies. It will have public hearings. It will review things in public. It will do all of that. At the end of that time, what the committee will do is refer something to Justice, if they have found a problem. That is the whole point of the select committee.

The problem is, if you read the Constitution, you see the debate clause. We believe, from our constitutional scholars on this side, that that whole committee will fall. It will not be able to do its job. The House has told us they don't see how Senators can investigate House Members and House Members can investigate Senate Members. We think the best way to go, Senator Reid and I and others, is to have the Justice Department get right in there. Ours is not a sense-of-the-Senate approach. We require the Justice Department to move forward. Instead of having a big Senate-House committee, with the press flashing pictures and all the rest, just get to it and ask Justice to investigate. We also worry, if there is a big committee--and there won't be, because the House won't accept it anyway--irony of all ironies, the Coconut Road fix will fall, because we fix it in this bill. If this bill falls because of this committee--because it is unconstitutional--there won't be a fix to Coconut Road. It is going to go back to the terrible change that somebody made in the dead of night. We don't want that to happen.

I hope my colleagues will reject that approach and support the Boxer- Reid approach which I believe is straightforward. It makes sense. It gets right to the heart. If there is a crime, let's find out about it.

On the McCain amendment, I actually was looking forward to debating it. I hope we will be able to, because there is a lot of dispute about how it would actually work in the real world. There is nothing in the McCain amendment that tells the oil companies they can't pocket the 18 cents that is going to come off. We have seen the oil companies. In California, in some places, we are over $4. This hurts our hearts. We see oil company profits soaring. If it were only the cost, they would be having the same profit and passing on the cost. But, no, their profits have gone up. We know about the CEO salaries and all the rest.

There is nothing in the McCain amendment--I would love to talk to John about that--that would say to the oil companies: Don't use this as a moment to raise 18 cents. So where might we be?

We might do this, and we would have to now go to the general fund. All taxpayers would have to pay for this. Let's be clear. There is no pay-for in the McCain amendment--none at all. It goes to the Treasury. Who puts money in the Treasury? My taxpayers, your taxpayers, all taxpayers. So taxpayers are now going to pay for this one way or the other. We take it away from the users and the taxpayers pay, and there is nothing in it that will ensure that the cost won't be nabbed and grabbed by the oil companies. Then they get the extra 18 cents, and we have blown a $9 billion hole in the Federal budget. It is amazing how my colleagues could say, it is a time of stress. We have to do this. We need to be a little bit more responsible.

I am looking forward to this debate. I like to pay for things. Maybe I am old-fashioned. I am an old economics major. I think it is good to pay for things. I think we could figure out a way to pay for things. But to say nobody gets hurt when the tab in the McCain amendment is picked up by all taxpayers is faulty. We will have to make up that $9 billion. We Democrats think there is a way to do it. We see the profits of the oil companies. We say to the oil companies: Good for you, but there is a point at which, when Americans are suffering, you have to do a little bit more.

I, for one, look forward to debating the McCain amendment soon. We will have that debate. But it isn't going to be on this bill. For that, I am grateful for this reason: We are bringing this to a close, and this package is in many ways a ministimulus. It will unleash $1

billion into the economy. It will unleash some of these projects that are so important for our people who got stuck for technical reasons or had to have minor changes for other reasons. This $1 billion, when it is unleashed, will create tens of thousands of good jobs, jobs building highways, bridges, transit systems. We are very happy, and we expect to have this vote at 3:30. We will have first the Boxer amendment, then the Coburn amendment, then a cloture vote, and then a vote on final passage. We should be doing very well.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Graham, Martinez, and Wicker be recognized for a total of up to 10 minutes and that following their remarks, Senator Kennedy be recognized for up to 20 minutes.

Madam President, before the majority leader leaves the floor, I thank him very much because he helped me enormously in this whole matter of an investigation. What we all want to do is get to the bottom of what happened with this Coconut Road situation, where it appears as if there may have been some activity that merits punishment.

When we heard that Senator Coburn wanted to take on this issue, we welcomed that because we do believe we have a responsibility to regain the trust of our people. That is why under Senator Reid's leadership we passed the most far-reaching ethics reforms ever.

I see my friend is in the chair. She is part of the new class of Senators who pushed very hard for that legislation. Therefore, when Senator Coburn came forward, we believed we certainly wanted to do something. But what Senator Reid, because he is a distinguished attorney, taught me is, there is a speech and debate clause in the Constitution, and this investigation with a select committee, House Members and Senate Members investigating each other and staff, could fall.

Here is the point, before my friend leaves the floor. The irony of all ironies is, if, in fact, the Coburn solution were to be adopted today and it did go forward, although we think it will bring the whole bill down, it wouldn't.

But let's say it is adopted. Nothing they do would really lead to anything until the end of their hearings. I call it kind of a circus atmosphere where colleagues would come, flashbulbs in everybody's face, and they take testimony. Nothing of consequence would occur, I say to my friend, until the end when they decide if there was something the Justice Department needed to look into.

Why have all that hoopla when you can get to the heart of the matter, which is saying to the Department of Justice: We want you--and this will require them. It doesn't say you ``may,'' it says you ``shall'' look into this. If the bill did fall, here is the totally irony: The fix to Coconut Road would fall. In other words, in the technical corrections bill, we fix the problem. If this whole thing falls because of the Coburn amendment, then we go back to the real problem of somebody changing the route of this particular road or building, freeway, whatever it was that was going to increase somebody's property. That would be the worst of all worlds.

I thank my leader for his help on this matter. He knows when I heard about this amendment, I said to him: Yes, we need to look into this, and he wanted to do it in the right way. He and his staff have been so helpful in getting us to this point where we have a very good alternative. I hope everybody votes for it.

Madam President, I thank my colleague for bringing this issue to our attention. I think he knows that in the beginning there were some voices that said: Let's not deal with this. But we worked together, and we did come up eventually with a way to deal with it.

I think some of our colleagues believe that where there is a constitutional issue and a precedent-setting issue here involving such a delicate matter, such a matter that could lead to a criminal investigation and punishment, we ought to have some type of consensus on it. But I share his concern.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute before we go to the regular order.

I think if neither amendment gets 60 votes--and I certainly hope the Boxer amendment does, and I expect it would, but I don't know, it might not--I am already working on an alternative I would talk to my friend about right now, which is for us to communicate in writing very strongly to the Justice Department and tell them how strongly we feel.

I also wish to make the point that my friend is right. Someday, somebody will write about this. People are already writing about it because of the work we are doing on this matter. The Senator and I have been quite forceful in the way we feel about this. People are writing about it. My hope is that what we do is not create a new kind of select committee. My friend said it has been done before, and he may be right. But why a committee when we can get right to the heart of the matter, which is: Was there a crime? If so, let's get to the bottom of it.

I do want to say, and I say this as chair of the Ethics Committee of the Senate, nothing is more important to me than having a fair Ethics Committee that works hard and is objective. Any Member of the Senate can make a complaint any day of the week and it automatically is looked at. I want to reiterate that. If people have an issue, please, let us know. That is why we are there.

For those of us who care a lot about this matter, we do need, if nobody gets 60--I hope we will, but if nobody does, this issue does not go away as far as I am concerned. It cannot go away.

I think it is very important, the way we deal with this, to understand that if we do something that the House has constitutional objections to and it brings down the technical corrections bill, the irony of ironies is the Coconut Road project doesn't get fixed, it goes back to the crooked way it was handled. We don't want that. We want to fix the Coconut Road problem and we want to have an investigation.

I yield the floor to get to the regular order at this time.

Amendment No. 4539, As Modified

Madam President, we have a very simple amendment. Sometimes in simplicity is strength. Sometimes in simplicity is power. Sometimes in simplicity you get to the place you want to get.

I do not like a lot of words. I believe a few words will say it. Look at what we say here:

Consistent with applicable standards and procedures--

which means everybody's rights are protected--

the Department of Justice shall review allegations of

impropriety regarding item 462 in section 1934(c) of Public

Law 109-59--

That is the Coconut Road project--

to ascertain if a violation of Federal criminal law has

occurred.

I think we know enough to warrant this kind of amendment. I think we know enough to be concerned. I think we know enough to say to the Justice Department: Please pay attention to this. Do your work. Make a determination and get on with it because this is very serious.

I yield the floor.

I ask for 10 more seconds.

I want to make the point, if we pass the Boxer amendment today and this bill gets signed into law by the President and we are requiring the Justice Department to do this, then they will be breaking the law.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Colleagues, this is very important. I wish to commend my colleague for bringing this whole issue to the floor of the Senate. But I think we have done something important. We have taken his concerns to heart, and with a very big vote, we have stated that the Justice Department is now required to open an investigation.

What the Senator does is set up an elaborate commission of Senators, of House Members; it is political on its face. It will only put off the day until an investigation is done by Justice. Because after having this elaborate commission, Senators investigating House Members, House Members investigating Senators, it is unconstitutional on its face on the speech and debate clause.

That will bring down this entire bill. Here is the irony of ironies. If we bring this bill down, the fix of Coconut Road will fall. We fix the Coconut Road problem in this bill.

I urge you, please say no to this idea because I feel we have done the right thing on this matter.

Madam President, we are ready.

All we want is an ``aye'' vote. Let's get this good bill passed. Let's unleash $1 billion worth of good, important projects into our communities and create tens of thousands of jobs.

We appreciate we have come this far. We thank you.

I yield to my colleague.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, this is a good day for the Senate. It took us a while to get here. I will thank staff in a moment--floor staff as well, and Senator Reid's staff, Senator Inhofe's staff, and my own staff.

Before that, I have two unanimous consent requests to make.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 403, H.R. 2828, the Foreign Service Victims of Terrorism Act, which will provide compensation to relatives of U.S. citizens killed as a result of the bombing of United States Embassies in East Africa on August 7, 1998; that the bill be read the third time, and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act; that the bill be read the third time, and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, we just heard objection, but we didn't get objection, finally, to the technical corrections bill. We are happy about that. You and I serve together on the Environment and Public Works Committee. We know our work is important because we know that no country can be great if it doesn't have an infrastructure that is up to par. The occupant of the chair knows more than most what it means when a bridge collapses. We know what that means. So what we are doing here is a matter of life and death, quite often.

This technical corrections bill will make it possible to continue work on over 500 projects that were stymied for various reasons. It is going to put a billion dollars into our economy, and it will provide tens of thousands of jobs. Senator Inhofe and I are very grateful that--even though this was not an easy week and this bill took so many twists and turns and we had to work our way through many issues--we have arrived at the point where it passed.

Let me say how much I enjoyed working with my staff and the staff of Senator Inhofe. I am going to read the names of those who deserve to be recognized and thanked. From my staff are Bettina Porier, Kathy Dedrick, Tyler Rushforth, Jeff Rosato, Erik Olsen, Paul Ordal, and the rest of my staff. We do work as a team.

I thank Senator Inhofe's staff, and I am sure there are more to be thanked, but the ones I worked with closely are, of course, Andy Wheeler, chief over there, Ruth Van Mark, James O'Keeffe, and Alex Herrgott. We are so grateful to you for being close to us, staying close to us, letting us know when there were problems. We appreciate that.

I say to the majority leader, Senator Reid, how much I appreciated his interest in this bill. He really helped us. Bob Herbert, of his staff, Ron Wynch, and Mike Castellano--we had technical issues and legal issues and they were there.

If I am leaving anyone out, please know it is not my intention. So many others helped us.

Yes.

I thank the Senator. Senator Carper, from Delaware, is one of the senior members on the committee, whom we love working with. He is part of our team. We have a great committee. It is why I like to be a legislator.

I want to say, in closing, to floor staff, all of you here, thank you for your patience. You have to answer questions. The pages have to be available to us. You all let us know what is going on and whether we are doing it right or wrong. Of course, in particular, I thank Lula, Tim, and Dave. Without the three of you, we could not have gotten this done.

Yes, sometimes when you get to this point, it is a little like making sausage--that is what they say about how a bill becomes a law; it is not a pretty thing. But we got it done. The most important thing is all of the people who helped us from the outside groups--I thank them--such as the construction industry, the construction workers, the transit district operators, the sand and gravel people. You know who you are. You made the point that we should not bog this bill down, that we should get it going.

I am delighted we had a victory here with the Water Resources Development Act. We are pleased. Up and coming, we are going to have a markup in a couple of weeks, and then we will get to global warming. I don't know how that will end, but I know it is going to be very exciting. We hope everybody will participate in that debate.

Is the Senator from Virginia going to speak?

I will yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call upon my colleague, Ms. Bordallo, who hails from Guam.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call upon our good friend, colleague from Texas, Representative Al Green.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call upon our good friend from California, Congressman Xavier Becerra.

Just to comment about both Congressmen Al Green and Xavier Becerra, they too are also members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus, and so they serve dual roles in their leadership. And I think CAPAC, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, enjoys the leadership, experience and the insights of these two gentlemen, and it makes our caucus stronger and partners with the other caucuses.

And it's no wonder that they come to Congress on behalf of the community because the communities there trust these two men and they trust their leadership and their insights and their conscience. So to both I say, thank you.

I'd like to call upon a Congresswoman who hails from the Aloha State who, I think, is probably the re-incarnation of the spirit of Patsy Mink, Mazie Hirono.

Mahalo. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Asian American Pacific Islander community and to commemorate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

As Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, commonly known as CAPAC, I feel privileged to be here tonight to speak of the Asian and Pacific Islander American history and accomplishments.

And before I continue, I would also like to recognize you, Mr. Speaker, for presiding over this Special Order and also knowing that you too have worked with other Asian American leaders in your home State, specifically Senator Stan Matsunaga. For that we are grateful.

Additionally, I will be highlighting those isues affecting our community and the priorities for CAPAC.

The history of APA Heritage Month: In celebrating APA Heritage Month, I want to give thanks to the late Representative Frank Horton from New York and my good friend Secretary Norman Mineta, along with Senators Daniel Inouye and Spark Masayuki Matsunaga, that May is now designated as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

The first 10 days of May coincide with two important anniversaries: the arrival of the first Japanese immigrants on May 7, 1843, to the U.S. and the completion of the transcontinental railroad on May 10, 1869.

In 1992 Congress passed public law No. 102-450, the law that officially designated May of each year as ``Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.'' The first AAPI settlement in this country dates back to 1763, when Filipinos escaped imprisonment aboard Spanish galleons and established a community near New Orleans.

The AAPI community quickly expanding. Currently, there are approximately 14.6 million AAPIs living in the United States, comprising just over 5 percent of the total U.S. population. By the year 2050, there will be an estimated 33.4 million individuals living in the United States who identify as Asian alone, representing a 213 percent increase from 2000, comprising 8 percent of the total U.S. population. My home State of California has both the largest AAPI population, 4.9 million, and the largest numerical increase of AAPIs since 2000.

There are some needs. Mr. Speaker, this year's theme for Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, ``Meeting the Challenges for Asian Pacific Americans,'' reflects hardships overcome by the AAPI community while highlighting the hope we maintain as we contribute to the prosperity of this great Nation. As our community expands, we must also continue to educate our fellow citizens about the uniqueness of our experiences.

The AAPI community is often misperceived as monolithic. Our community is extremely diverse in our languages, ethnicities, culture, and challenges. Aggregating such a large and diverse group makes it difficult to understand the unique problems faced by the individual ethnicities and subgroups, such as the Southeast Asian Americans, who are refugees that fled their home countries during the late 1970s and the early 1980s. As a country, we need to better address the needs of the AAPI community when we discuss comprehensive immigration reform, education, health issues, and veterans' affairs.

Comprehensive immigration reform: Mr. Speaker, our Nation was founded by immigrants who valued freedom and liberty, who sought to be free from persecution and from tyranny. Families fled their home countries to seek refuge in this great Nation because they too believed in ``liberty, justice, and freedom for all.'' It is in this spirit that

CAPAC supports immigration legislation that shifts the debate from an exclusionary, anti-immigrant, enforcement-only approach to one that confronts the social and economic realities behind immigration; honors the dignity of all families and communities; and recognizes the economic, social, and cultural contributions of immigrants to our great country.

Today, AAPIs constitute a growing and vibrant piece of the American fabric. In 2005 close to 9 million of this Nation's foreign born were born in Asia, constituting approximately one quarter of the foreign- born population and over one half of the total AAPI population. Even with a relatively high naturalization rate, there are approximately 1.5 million Asian undocumented immigrants living, working, or studying in the U.S., representing 14 percent of the undocumented immigrants in the United States. These include victims of immigration fraud, who have become undocumented due to no fault of their own. Many work and study hard, pay taxes, and yet live in fear with no hope of gaining a path to legal permanent resident status. Let's give these workers and these students an opportunity.

In addition to an earned pathway to citizenship, family reunification is a high priority in the AAPI community. Immigration reform must espouse the family values that are so fundamental to our national ideals. Family members provide care for the sick, for their children, and for their elderly. Family members are crucial for small businesses and educational opportunities. Close to 2 million AAPIs wait years, sometimes even decades, in order to reunite with their families in the United States. AAPI families who seek to be reunited with their family members overseas have not seen their dreams come true because of our dysfunctional immigration system. We need comprehensive immigration reform to address these backlogs.

And education: In addition to immigration reform, expanding educational access for all Americans is also a high priority for CAPAC. Mr. Speaker, as Americans, we need to ensure that our children receive a quality education by providing adequate teacher training, funds for after-school and extra-curricular activities, and ensuring that college is affordable for every student who desires to receive a higher education.

According to the U.S. Census, 41 percent of Asians age 25 and over have a bachelor's degree or higher level of education. However, when the data is disaggregated for AAPI subgroups, we find that the ``model minority'' stereotype is, in fact, a myth. According to the 2000 Census, only 9.1 percent of Cambodian Americans, 7.4 percent of Hmong Americans, 7.6 percent of Lao Americans, 19.5 percent of Vietnamese Americans, and 16.5 percent of Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders who are 25 years and older have a bachelor's degree or higher degrees.

These numbers show that we must do a better job of disaggregating the data and information about our communities to assess the needs of those hardworking Americans who still falter behind.

To address the disparities between subgroups of the larger AAPI community, we need Congress to pass the Asian American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions bill, which my colleague from Oregon, Representative David Wu, has introduced in January. This legislation will provide Federal grants to colleges and universities that have an enrollment of undergraduate students that is at least 10 percent AAPI and at least 50 percent of its degree-seeking students receive financial assistance.

As a caucus, we will work to increase the availability of loan assistance, scholarships, and programs to allow AAPI students to attend a higher education institution; to ensure full funding for teachers and bilingual education programs under the No Child Left Behind law to support English language learners; and to support full funding of minority outreach programs for access to higher education such as the TRIO programs to expand services to serve AAPI students.

In health, Mr. Speaker, a common misperception of AAPIs is that as a group, we face fewer health problems than other racial and ethnic groups. But, in fact, AAPI as a group, and specific populations within this group, do experience disparities in health and health care. For example, AAPIs have the highest hepatitis B rates of any racial group in the United States.

This week, health advocates from around the country will be participating in a National Awareness Campaign to bring attention to and educate their communities about prevention of hepatitis B through testing and vaccination. In the United States, 12 million people have been infected at some time in their lives with the hepatitis B virus, and more than 5,000 Americans die from hepatitis B related liver complications each year.

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders account for more than half of the chronic hepatitis B cases and half of the deaths resulting from chronic hepatitis B infections in the United States. In order to break the silence surrounding this deadly disease and bring awareness to the American people, Congressman Edolphus Towns, Congressman Charlie Dent and I have introduced H.R. 366, which supports the goals and ideals of National Hepatitis B Awareness Week. I hope my colleagues will join me in educating our communities about the dangers of this disease.

AAPIs are also five times more likely to develop cervical and liver cancer than any other ethnic and racial group. Furthermore, according to the Census Bureau, 18 percent of AAPIs went without insurance for the entire year in 2000. This means that the uninsured are not only more likely to go without health care for serious medical conditions, they are also more likely to go without routine care, less likely to have a regular source of care, less likely to use preventive services, and have viewer visits per year.

At the same time, without appropriate language translation services or properly translated materials, limited English proficient immigrants cannot receive adequate care as well as State and Federal benefits for which they may be eligible. In the AAPI community, 76 percent of Hmong Americans, 61 percent of Vietnamese Americans, 62 percent of Korean Americans and 39 percent of Tongans speak limited English. Therefore, eliminating health care disparities in the AAPI community must include data collection, linguistically appropriate and culturally competent services and access to health insurance.

CAPAC has been working with both the Congressional Hispanic and Black Caucuses on the Health Care Equity and Accountability Act to eliminate ethnic and racial health disparities for all of our communities. The act would expand the health care safety net, diversify the health care workforce, combat diseases that disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities, emphasize prevention and behavioral health, and promote the collection and dissemination of data and enhance medical research.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to extend my gratitude to the patriotic men and women serving our country in the military, including the 62,378 AAPIs who are on active duty in the military, and the 7,904 AAPIs who are currently deployed in the global war on terrorism. I also commend and thank the 446,000 AAPI veterans who have fought for our country.

I would like to highlight and honor the Filipino veterans who have not been compensated or recognized for their service, which I believe is a national disservice to these brave veterans. As a country, it is our duty to ensure these veterans have equal access to all of the benefits and treatment that other veterans receive. We believe that our troops should be taken care of when we send them into battle and that they should be given the respect when they return home. Therefore, CAPAC endorses H.R. 760, the Filipino Veterans Equity Act introduced by Representative Bob Filner, who chairs the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. CAPAC thanks Representaive Filner for his leadership on this issue.

H.R. 760 would do justice by providing the full benefits promised to all Filipino veterans who fought in World War II under the command of the U.S. military. The Filipino Veterans Equity Act would eliminate the disparities and

benefits between some Filipino veterans and restore the honor and dignity they so deserve. With Congressman Filner as the Chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we have a great chance to get this bill to the floor.

There are many firsts among the AAPIs. I am proud of our community's accomplishments, and I would like to recognize many of the AAPIs first in areas of art, film, sports, science, academia and politics, but also emphasize that they should not be the last.

In 1847, Yung Wing, a Chinese American, graduated from Yale University and became the first AAPI to graduate from an American university.

In 1863, William Ah Hang, a Chinese American, became the first AAPI to enlist in the U.S. Navy during the Civil War.

In 1922, Anna May Wong, in her lead role in ``The Toll of the Sea,'' at the age of 17 became the first AAPI female to become a movie star, achieving stardom at a time when prejudice against the Chinese in the United States was rampant.

In 1944, An Wang, a Chinese American who invented the magnetic core memory, revolutionized computing and served as a standard method for memory retrieval and storage. And today we have iPods that are smaller than a deck of cards that can hold up to four gigabytes of information, all coming from this 1944 invention by An Wang.

During World War II, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team of the United States Army, comprised mostly of Japanese Americans, became the most highly decorated unit of its size in the history of the U.S. Army, including 22 Medal of Honor recipients, Senator Daniel Inouye being one of them.

In 1946, Wing F. Ong, a Chinese American of Arizona, became the first AAPI to be elected to State office.

In 1947, Wataru ``Wat'' Misaka became the first ethnic minority and the first AAPI to play in the National Basketball Association for the New York Knicks. How about that?

In 1948, two Californian divers, Dr. Samuel Lee, a Korean American, and Victoria Manalo Draves, a Filipina American, became the first AAPIs to win Olympic gold medals for the U.S.

In 1956, Dalip Singh Saud, an Indian American, became the very fist AAPI to be elected to the U.S. Congress.

In 1959, Hiram Leong Fong, a Chinese American, became the first AAPI to be elected as a United States Senator and is the only AAPI to actively seek the Presidential nomination of a major party.

In 1965, Patsy Takemoto Mink, a Japanese American, becames the first AAPI woman and woman of color elected to the United States Congress.

In 1971, Judge Herbert Choy, late Ninth Circuit Court judge, became the first AAPI to sit on the Federal bench.

In 1985, Haing Ngor, a Cambodian American survivor of the Khmer Rouge regime, became the first AAPI to win an Academy Award for his role in ``The Killing Fields'' movie.

In 1985, Ellison Onizuka, grandson of a Japanese immigrant, became the first AAPI astronaut to reach outer space, and in 1986 died in the space shuttle explosion of the Challenger.

In 2000, Secretary Norman Mineta was confirmed as Secretary of Commerce under President Clinton and became the very first AAPI to hold a cabinet post; then continued his service to America as Secretary of Transportation under President Bush.

In 2001, Secretary Elaine Chao was confirmed as Secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush, becoming the first AAPI female to hold a cabinet position.

Mr. Speaker, the Asian and Pacific Islander American community continues to fight for our civil rights as Americans. Even after the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, we as a community did not grow embittered or cowed by discrimination; instead, we progressed and moved forward.

I am a proud member of the AAPI community, and I am proud to be one because we continue to serve as positive contributors to our many communities by investing in education, business and cultural opportunities for all Americans.

In closing, this Asian Pacific American Heritage Month we take pride in our history, accomplishments and the promise of our future as we continue to pave the way for a better tomorrow and a better America.

Mr. President, the Senate must act to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and we must do so now. The House has already acted on this bill to restore the basic protection against pay discrimination as part of our Nation's commitment to equal justice and full civil rights for all.

Protecting these fundamental rights and ending discrimination in all forms are essential to our success as a nation. Republicans and Democrats worked together to enact our civil rights laws, and the American people want and deserve these protections to be implemented in full.

The guarantee of equal pay was first enacted in 1963. When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, he emphasized that protection against pay discrimination is ``basic to democracy,'' and those words are still true today.

In the years that followed, Congress passed other strong, bipartisan laws to strengthen the guarantee of equal pay for millions of Americans. Over the years, the Senate has gone on record time and again in favor of fairness and against discrimination.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted after long, difficult, and contentious debate, but the cause of justice eventually prevailed. That landmark legislation included many important protections, including, for the first time, protection against pay discrimination on the job because of race, national origin, gender, and religion. That is title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public accommodations is another very major part of that legislation. But title VII provided these kinds of protections against discrimination. That legislation passed 73 to 27.

We went on record again when the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was passed in 1967, with unanimous support in the Senate. Equal pay for those who are older; you are not going to be able to discriminate against the elderly. It was passed unanimously.

The consensus in favor of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which outlaws discrimination based on disability in federally funded programs and activities, was so strong it passed the Senate by a voice vote.

All of us are familiar with the fact that if there is going to be a dispute or major differences, people are going to call for a rollcall vote, even if there is going to be only a handful of people against it. In this situation, with regard to fair pay, equal pay, in the areas of those people who are working with the disabled, the guarantee was going to be fair pay. It, effectively, in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, passed the Senate by a voice vote.

In 1990, the Senate passed the Americans with Disabilities Act 91 to 6, and it was signed into law by the first President Bush. The first President Bush has stated--and I have heard him eloquently say it was the most important piece of legislation that passed and he signed into law. It had protections against discriminating against those who are disabled individuals.

We passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 by an overwhelming margin of 93 to 5. That was a clear vote in favor of fairness. It too was signed into law by the current President's father.

On this chart is the list where the Senate has addressed this issue of equal pay for equal work. Going back to 1963, these are the different Presidents who signed legislation--including President Johnson, President Nixon, President Reagan, President Bush. Look at the overwhelming votes: a clear indication of what the intention has been by this Congress in terms of fairness and justice, and correctly so.

Each time we have considered the issue, the Senate has taken the high road. Once again, we must demonstrate that we mean what we say. These important laws established the bedrock principle of equal pay for equal work, and they have made our Nation a stronger and better and fairer land.

In these times of economic hardship, working people deserve more than ever the chance to earn a fair day's pay for an honest day's work. Yet, as a result of the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision--5 to 4: one vote-- last May in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, more American workers will have to endure pay discrimination, without the means to stop it.

Let me show what is happening with regard to women at the present time. We have serious economic challenges we are facing today. But look at the overall economic challenges, the downturn in our economy, and how it is playing out in terms of women. Women's earnings are falling faster than men's. We all hear about the falling of purchasing power among working families across this country. We can see it is falling a good deal faster in terms of the decline in median wages in the year 2007 for women.

As I mentioned, this legislation also applies in terms of African Americans, the disability community, age discrimination, national origin quotas--all of them. Look what is happening with the current economic crisis. Minorities are hit hardest by the economic downturn. So we have the economic downturn going on, and we have this decision which said the employers are going to be able to discriminate against workers on the basis of race, gender, national origin. It is unbelievable that a Supreme Court of the United States, 5 to 4, would overturn 5 to 6 major pieces of legislation that were decided overwhelmingly by this body over a 30-year period which say we want equal pay for equal work.

The list goes on. We know, basically, women make 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. That is existing. These are the current data of the U.S. census in 2007. So this is the current situation, generally. What we are trying to do is change this; to get equal pay for equal work. But inherently, this is where we are in 2007, and unless we change this, it is going to continue or probably even grow worse.

It is reflected, as we would expect, in family income. This chart shows we are talking about equal pay for women, and this legislation also applies to African Americans and national origin. Here we have African-American men receiving 21 percent less pay than White men. We find the same for Latinos. They are affected by this decision as well. Latinos receive 72 cents for every dollar earned by White workers. This shows the distinction, the annual distinction, about $8,000 a year. This has been true.

So we know we are facing a difficult economic time. We also know the people who suffer the most are the people--whether it is women, whether it is African Americans, whether it is Latino, whether it is disability or whether it is elderly, all those groups are affected by the Ledbetter decision, and in the face of 30 years of this Congress saying time and time and time again, in a bipartisan way, we are going to insist on equality of pay for equal work. That is the issue. That had been the law. This legislation we are talking about with Ledbetter, we are trying to go back to what the law was.

This chart indicates--the light green is what we would go back to, and the dark green is where the EEOC held the same as we are proposing in this legislation. This had worked and worked effectively. That is why the CBO said this isn't any further additional burden on industry or business. We are going to hear that argument. We have the CBO study which says that, because basically most employers want to do the right thing. They understand it, they respect it, and they want to do the right thing. So they are not going to be penalized; it will be others who will be penalized.

On this final point, as I mentioned the different groups affected, this shows pay discrimination hurts all kinds of Americans. This orange depicts the disabled, this is national origin, 760. These are cases of pay discrimination charges, including 2,470 in terms of the gender; and on race, 2,352; on age discrimination, 978. So this is 7,000--these are the cases that are brought. Most estimates are it is in the hundreds of thousands of actual cases that are out there that people don't know about.

Lilly Ledbetter didn't know about the fact that she was being shortchanged for years and years and years because people keep the payroll secret. Finally, she hears from others who are working and who are doing comparable work, and she gradually puts it together that she has been shortchanged. Sure enough, she had been shortchanged for years and years and years. The local jury made the decision to pay the damages and the Supreme Court overruled it and said: You are out of luck, Lilly Ledbetter. You should have brought your case within 180 days of the time you were employed. Even though you didn't know about it, you still should have brought it. Even if you didn't know about it, tough luck. You have no remedies. No remedies. No remedies. It has been going on for years. None. That is fundamentally and basically wrong, and that is what we are changing.

We have very strong support for this legislation. We have the support of various groups, including the American Association of People With Disabilities; the AARP, obviously, because of discrimination of the elderly; Business and Professional Women, the NAACP, United Auto Workers, National Congress of Black Women, the Religious Action Center, U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. They understand it and see it. The list goes on. I will include a more complete list with my remarks for the Record.

Many people give speeches on fairness and the need to help people in these tough economic times. An important way we can do so is by proving we still stand strongly against pay discrimination, that we would not allow the rights workers thought they had to be undone by misguided court decisions. Fair treatment for all employees is especially important now. As I mentioned, our faltering economy is hitting working families hard. There were 230,000 jobs lost in the first 3 months of this year. Unemployment rates climbed. Over 1 million working men and women have joined the unemployed since this past year.

Few doubt that we are now in a serious recession. It has been particularly hard on women and minorities and on workers--particularly hard. Of the 80,000 jobs that were lost in this last month, 50,000 were construction workers. The unemployment rate among women has risen sharply in the past year. Minorities are suffering more. Unemployment for African Americans is now well over 9 percent, almost twice the national average.

The impact of unfair pay practices is staggering. Today, as I mentioned, women still earn 23 percent less than men; African Americans, 21 percent less than White men; and Latinos earn 72 cents for every dollar paid to White workers.

In fact, the financial security of all working men and women is undermined by this recession. Workers are suffering already, and millions increasingly find their paychecks do not go far enough. They don't deserve to bear the additional burden of discrimination in their pay. The cost of this discrimination becomes more and more intolerable over time. Lilly Ledbetter lost tens of thousands of dollars over the course of her career because every paycheck made the burden of the discrimination even greater.

There is no doubt that the Supreme Court's decision in the Ledbetter case has left employees without one of the fundamental protections against pay discrimination that Congress intended them to have. The Court decision undermined their ability to hold employers accountable for such discrimination by imposing serious and unnecessary obstacles to ending the discrimination against them.

Under the Ledbetter case, the time limit for filing of pay discrimination claim begins to run, as I mentioned, when an employer decides to discriminate--not when the worker finds out about the discriminatory paycheck. Employers who conceal their illegal action for 180 days are free to discriminate. They can pay women less than men. They can pay African Americans less than Whites. They can pay older Americans less than younger ones and pay religious minorities and persons with disabilities less than other workers. These employees can never, ever obtain relief. Paycheck after paycheck can keep implementing the discrimination, and workers have no way to hold employers accountable.

Clearly, the decision has opened up a flagrant loophole in our civil rights, and the Congress cannot let it stand. Under this bill, the 180- day clock restarts with every discriminatory paycheck, so employees can challenge ongoing discrimination, even if their employer successfully hides its true motives at first.

Lilly Ledbetter was one of the few women supervisors at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Gadsen,

AL. She worked at the plant for almost two decades, constantly fighting to prove that women could do a job traditionally done by men. She endured insults from her male supervisors. She was told the plant didn't need women. Yet she persevered and gave the company a fair day's work. She had children and both she and her husband were working hard to support them. She had no idea Goodyear was not living up to its responsibility to pay her fairly.

For almost two decades, the company discriminated against her by using discriminatory evaluations to pay her less than her male colleagues who performed exactly the same duties. Many of those male colleagues had less seniority and experience than she had, but they were still paid more than she was for identical work.

The jury saw the injustice of Goodyear's mistreatment of Ms. Ledbetter and awarded her full damages. Five members of the Supreme Court ignored that injustice and ruled Ms. Ledbetter was entitled to nothing at all--nothing at all--because she filed her claim too late. The Court's decision gives countless employers a free hand to conceal and continue illegal discrimination and leaves workers powerless to stop it.

The bipartisan Fair Pay Restoration Act will restore the clear intent of Congress when we passed the important laws I mentioned earlier. It would restore the fair and reasonable rule that applied in the vast majority of the country until May 29 of last year. If we pass this bill, we can go back to the longstanding rule that the clock begins to run for filing a pay discrimination claim on the day a worker receives a discriminatory paycheck, rather than the day the employer first decides to discriminate.

By enacting this law, we will restore a rule that reflects how pay discrimination actually occurs in the workplace, and it will give all workers a fair means to stop ongoing discrimination and obtain fair compensation for the discrimination they have endured. By doing so, we will also be helping to prevent employers from engaging in such discrimination in the first place.

There is nothing radical about the changes this bill will make. It simply restores the law employers and workers had lived with for many years, until last May 29, the date of the Supreme Court's distressing decision.

I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring the full strength of the antipay discrimination laws we have enacted in the past. Let's take a clear stand for all working men and women and pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of supporters be printed in the Record.

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

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

I request permission to speak as in morning business for no more than 7 minutes.

Mr. President, on February 29, 2008, the U.S. Air Force announced its award of the KC-45A air refueling tanker program, a replacement to the aging KC-135 fleet. The two competitors in this process were Northrop Grumman-EADS on the one hand and the Boeing Company on the other. After a 13-month-long process, the Northrop Grumman proposal was selected as the better product for the American soldier and also the better value for the American taxpayer. It should come as no surprise that this decision amounted to a major disappointment for Boeing. Their employees and executives would understandably have appreciated the economic benefit such an award would have brought to them.

The award of the tanker program to Northrop Grumman was not the first setback to the Boeing Company in this regard.

In 2004, Congress intervened, in the fiscal year 2005 Defense bill, to terminate the Air Force tanker lease agreement. This agreement would have been costly and simply bad public policy. Afterward, the Air Force responded with one of the clearest and most transparent acquisition processes in history. The Air Force is now able to purchase and own 179 KC-45s for the same price it was going to spend to lease 100 Boeing 767s.

Compared to the reactions in States where Boeing has a presence, the selection of Northrop Grumman was greeted with enthusiasm in Mobile, AL, and along the gulf coast of my State of Mississippi, where thousands of jobs will be created locally. The tankers will be built in Mobile, but the economic impact will be felt throughout the gulf coast and, in reality, throughout the Nation. Such is the nature of the competitive process. One contestant is selected, and the other must deal with disappointing news.

It is important for Senators to understand that the Air Force and the Defense Department utilized an extremely fair and open acquisition process. The Government requested and received proposals for the tanker in early 2007 and then continued with an open review process until Northrop Grumman was announced as the winner in February of this year.

In winning this contract, Northrop Grumman simply did a better analysis and provided a better solution for the Air Force. The KC-45A carries more fuel, more passengers, and more cargo. It will also cost less to produce, passing along savings to the American taxpayers. By utilizing a broad base of suppliers in 49 of our 50 States, the Northrop Grumman tanker will create 48,000 direct and indirect jobs across our country.

Despite this, some want to stop this process from going forward. I have been disturbed by the words and actions of Boeing and its supporters. The level of misinformation injected into this process with the clear intent of derailing the award is troubling for many reasons-- not the least of which is the precedent that would be set by Congress should it overturn this decision. The Air Force should be allowed to make this acquisition decision based solely on the facts and the merits of the two competing proposals, and that is exactly what it did in choosing the Northrop Grumman tanker.

Let's look at some of the claims made by Boeing and its supporters-- first, that the competition was somehow unfair. The Air Force and the Defense Department testified recently to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the KC-45A tanker competition was perhaps the most rigorous, fair, and transparent acquisition in DOD history. This open process allowed for a significant amount of dialog among the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and the two bidders. This included weekly teleconferences with the Air Force, which, during the review process, sent Northrop Grumman 295 evaluation notices. They sent approximately 250 notices to Boeing.

Furthermore, following the formal request for proposals in January 2007, the Air Force received no complaints from Boeing or anyone else that the proposal request was somehow unfair. There were ample opportunities for those concerns to be aired, but no one said a word in this regard. Considering this, it is very hard to make a straight-faced claim that the process was not open or fair.

There has also been a high level of misinformation about the so- called exportation of American jobs. Some erroneously claim the Northrop Grumman award will outsource thousands of U.S. jobs to Europe. This is simply not true. No jobs are being exported to Europe. On the contrary, the KC-45A will create thousands of new jobs in America and will support a total of 48,000 direct and indirect jobs in 49 States, as I have said.

More than 230 suppliers across the United States helped make up the 60 percent U.S. content in the KC-45A tanker. This will truly be America's tanker, assembled in America by American workers and for the protection of the American military. The KC-45A will be fully assembled and militarized for U.S. Air Force operations by American workers in two separate facilities in Mobile.

No sensitive military technology will be exported to Europe in connection with this program. Instead, a new aerospace corridor will continue to grow and flourish along the gulf coast region.

The KC-45A tanker will join the Global Hawk, Fire Scout, joint cargo aircraft, and the light utility helicopter production facilities that are already successfully producing high-reliability defense systems for our Nation. The light utility helicopter, for example, is being built by EADS North America in Columbus, MS. It is a true success for the Army and for our economy. The Lakota, as the helicopter is known, was delivered to the Army 3 months ahead of schedule. To date, 24 Lakota helicopters have been delivered on or ahead of schedule. The Lakota has over 2,000 flight hours, with over a 90-percent full mission capable rate. In addition, EADS North America completed a 314,000-square-foot expansion to its Mississippi facility to manufacture this helicopter. Perhaps most importantly, the program is on budget and on schedule to deliver a critical platform to the American warfighter--just another example of EADS North America producing a product for our country's defense, using American workers.

There should be no doubt that the workforce in the gulf coast region is up to the task of building these complex systems. The results to date on the systems I just mentioned speak for themselves.

Our workforce is second to none in the Nation. So this debate, as much as some would make you believe otherwise, is not about American jobs versus European jobs. It is about where in the United States those jobs will be.

A recent full-page ad in newspapers across the country represented the worst of the misinformation. The ad claimed the Air Force selection ``penalized the warfighter and the taxpayer.''

The facts tell another story. The KC-45A was evaluated to be a superior product for the warfighter. It was also judged by the Air Force to be a better value for the taxpayer, providing superior military capability across the board at a lower total cost than the competing KC-767 aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force is not alone in choosing the KC-45A. Our friend and ally, the United Kingdom, recently announced the selection of this same aircraft frame as the best solution to meet their national security requirements. The U.K. selection is the fifth tanker competition in a row where the EADS platform was chosen as the winner over all other competitors. Australia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have also recently placed orders for this tanker.

Some are calling for tighter restrictions on the level of international content in U.S. defense systems. That, to my mind, would be a mistake and would amount to changing the rules in the middle of the game. The U.S. economy is tightly integrated into the global economy, and the aerospace sector is no exception.

There are numerous examples of transatlantic cooperation on vital U.S. military programs where foreign suppliers do play essential roles. Some of the more visible programs include the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter produced by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and British Aerospace; the VH-71 Presidential helicopter produced by Lockheed Martin and Augusta Westland, a European consortium; and the Joint Cargo Aircraft produced by L-3, Boeing, and Alenia, built in Florida from an Italian airframe.

I don't recall anyone in this Chamber or from Boeing expressing concern about the level of European participation in the Joint Cargo Aircraft, which has only about 60 percent U.S. content, nor did anyone complain about possible interruption of supplies of spare parts, which some have suggested would be a likely outcome of buying the KC-45A.

To repeat, Boeing's Joint Cargo Aircraft is 60 percent U.S. content and 40 percent international. When this contract was awarded, no one raised a single complaint about that. Now, when Boeing loses a competition to a partnership with a similar domestic-foreign ratio, they make it sound as if the world is coming to an end.

It seems to me the level of noise depends on whose ox is being gored.

Mr. President, might I inquire, how much of the 10 minutes is remaining from the request of the Senator from California?

I will do my best.

Mr. President, I thank Senator McCain and Senator Kyl for putting forward this proposal. I was delighted to see it. I would, frankly, hope that Democrats and Republicans could come together on this issue in a bipartisan manner and provide this temporary relief for hard- pressed Americans during the summer months.

Many people ask us, why are gas prices so high? Why is this continuing to happen? As we know, there are many complex factors involved in that: worldwide demand, countries such as China and India increasing their demand for oil and gas at this point; also, unstable governments in oil-producing regions; and Americans' continued reliance on foreign sources of oil.

But, also, I must confess the problem being experienced by Americans, in large measure, is due to Federal policies. In the mid-1990s, President Clinton vetoed a proposal to drill in ANWR, even though the residents of the State of Alaska have asked us for permission to drill there and have told us they are satisfied it can be done in an environmentally friendly manner. Also, we have had the refusal to produce energy in America when we know it can be done in an environmentally safe way, whether that be the production of more crude oil, oil shale, or liquefied coal.

So the Federal Government and this Congress bear a good bit of the responsibility. In light of that, I think we have to ask ourselves--Mr. President, might I have an additional 1\1/2\ minutes?

Thank you, Mr. President.

I think this Senate--Republicans and Democrats--needs to ask: We have a choice. Do we ask the Federal Government to tighten its belt a bit and adopt this summer-long Federal gasoline tax holiday or do we continue to require American families to tighten their belts and pay higher gasoline prices? Do we continue to require American farmers and small businesses, who have to use transportation to earn a living, to tighten their belts?

I think the better answer there is to provide 18 cents per gallon of relief for American families, 24 cents per gallon of relief to those who are required to use diesel to earn their livelihoods, and for the Federal Government to tighten its belt and absorb this $8 billion to $9 billion that the Senator from California talked about.

The Senator from South Carolina mentioned we have already passed a much more expensive economic stimulus measure because we are concerned about the economy. This economy could go either way. We can take action to prevent it from sliding into a recession. We have already adopted one a few months ago. The McCain plan is another one. I enthusiastically support the concept. I think it is time we give Americans a break at the pump. This would do so during an important period as our economy teeters on the edge.

I hope we continue to have this debate, as the Senator from California suggested, and adopt it on a bipartisan basis.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The provisions of this bill are critical to our national security and to improving the readiness for our fighting men and women who serve our country so ably. I commend Chairman Ike Skelton, Ranking Member Duncan Hunter, and my colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services for their leadership and work on writing this important legislation. The work of the committee ensures that this Congress will make a meaningful and positive impact on our Armed Forces.

Many members of the United States armed services, including scores of servicemembers from Guam, are at duty stations in the United States, at sea, or are deployed to combat zones and elsewhere around the world today. I have had the unique opportunity, since I was elected to Congress in 2002 and sworn into office in 2003, to travel to many of the combat zones and visit with our servicemembers there. I remain impressed by the professionalism of the members of the United States armed services. I am inspired by their continued, steadfast commitment to their achieving their missions. And I am heartened by their daily, unquestioned acts of bravery performed in defense of the American way of life, despite the hostile intentions and aggressive actions of persistent and deadly enemies.

The responsibilities and obligations of members of the United States armed services are significant and honorable, but not without great risk. The tenth soldier from Guam to be killed in action during operations support of the war on terror will soon be laid to rest by his family, friends, and a grateful country. I, like all of my colleagues, am deeply saddened when we learn that the life of one of our country's finest young men and women has been ended as a result of their service to our country. Such a loss is grave to the United States and to the United States armed services. But there is no doubt their passing is a more grievous loss to their family, friends, and communities who knew and loved them as individuals. All of us should try to find comfort in the thought that our service men and women serve so that others might someday know the joys of liberty and justice. And for that, we should all be proud and thankful.

We have the opportunity today to act and renew our commitment to our servicemembers. Supporting this legislation will help provide for our military heroes and their families. There are few who deserve our support and gratitude more than these individuals and their spouses and children. At home and abroad, they serve and represent our country and government in a manner that is both honorable and admirable.

This legislation in particular addresses many critical issues that face Guam, our community and the existing and planned military facilities for our island. Included in this bill are authorizations for a total of over $300 million of military construction projects on Guam for fiscal year 2008. This amount represents a significant increase above the amount of military construction funding that was authorized and appropriated for Guam for fiscal year 2007. I welcome this significant increase in investment in Guam. These increases improve the facilities and capabilities of the military bases on Guam. But they also help Guam's business community to begin to build the capacity that it will need in order to successfully compete for, and complete the scopes of work of, the tremendous amount of military construction planned to support the rebasing of United States Marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam.

The bill before us today includes approvals for full funding of several key infrastructure projects at Naval Base Guam. Among them is an authorization for $59.4 million to improve the base's electrical system security; for $57.2 million for Naval family housing; for $51.8 million to expand wharf capacity at Kilo Wharf in Apra Harbor; for $42.5 million for a new fitness center on base; for $40.8 million to repair and upgrade the base's wastewater treatment plant; and for $31.4 million to build Phase I of a potable water distribution system on base. This legislation would also provide authorizations to fund needed projects at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. The authorizations are for $15.8 million for two projects at Northwest Field to support the 607th Training Flight ``Commando Warrior'' unit that will soon relocate from Osan Air Base, Korea, to Guam.

In addition to military construction projects, H.R. 1585 addresses quality of life issues for military retirees and military dependents on Guam. The Department of Defense has been unresponsive to the needs of retirees on Guam who are reliant on the TRICARE system. Military retirees who live on Guam who are referred off island for specialty care are forced to travel to those locations at their own expense. These trips to access referred specialty care in Hawaii or California cost in the

thousands of dollars. The Department of Defense used to cover this significant expense. But in 2005 it suddenly changed its policy and practice and discontinued reimbursements to retirees for the travel expenses they incur as a result of such referrals. I raised this matter repeatedly during committee hearings since 2005. I have written to Department officials regarding this issue, and discussed it with them during meetings. The committee included report language on this matter in the report that accompanied H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005. Unfortunately, the Department has taken no action to provide relief to Guam's retirees.

I understand that this is a challenging issue. But Guam's retirees deserve to be treated better and deserve resolution brought to this matter. This is why I requested that H.R. 1585 include a provision that would authorize retirees requiring specialty care at off-island medical facilities to receive space-available category 4 level seating priority. Additionally, I have requested that the Department of Defense be required to submit to the committee a report that would identify the administrative actions needed to be executed in order to provide relief to the affected TRICARE beneficiaries residing in the territories of the United States. I most sincerely hope that the Department takes a very close look at its current policies and provides the committee with a thoughtful, innovative, and actionable plan to resolve this matter. I remain committed to working with the Department toward this end.

The report accompanying H.R. 1585 includes language that directs the Department of Defense to conduct a study on the treatment of general and flag officers, and other servicemembers who are called out of retirement to serve their country. It has come to my attention that there are numerous instances where officers left active duty or reserve status only to return and were not allowed to retire at the highest grade attained. In an era where our Reserve components are operational forces, we can ill afford losing any servicemembers who have the institutional knowledge and expertise that is critical to maintaining a ready and operational force. Moreover, we must ensure that our Reserve component members are treated equitably and fairly. I am committed to ensuring that the affected servicemembers receive a fair and equitable solution to this issue and that they be able to retire with the benefits they have earned. I commit that I will work closely with the Department to ensure that we come to a fair solution to this matter.

Finally, I was honored to co-sponsor the National Guard Empowerment Act under the leadership of Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Davis of Virginia, and Mr. Hayes of North Carolina. I am pleased that a substantial portion this legislation has been incorporated into H.R. 1595. After comprehensive studies undertaken by various research institutions and by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve we finally have legislation that addresses the concerns brought forward in these studies. We will finally give the National Guard a seat at the table. As Lieutenant Governor, I know firsthand, how brave, valiant, and essential the National Guard is to the safety and security of our country. Elevating the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a four- star general allows the Bureau to overcome certain cultural dynamics within the Department of Defense. The provisions making the National Guard Bureau a joint activity and the requirement to have the Chief of the National Guard Bureau help identify Department of Defense civil support requirements are even more essential. If we are to give the National Guard a seat at the table, then we must ensure that the root problems are rectified. Nothing can be more important than ensuring that we have a ready force to respond to natural disasters and terrorist attacks. Where other departments and agencies have failed in previous years, I am confident that the National Guard will develop a solid lay down of requirements so that we, as a country, are truly ready to respond to emergencies. I also believe, consistent with my other initiatives, that the Department should give very serious consideration to allowing State Adjutants Generals joint credit for their service to the State. The National Guard is truly a joint force and the work of their general officers should be recognized as such.

I support this bill Mr. Chairman. There are quality provisions in it that will benefit the bases on Guam. The quality of life experienced by military personnel who are stationed there and their families who accompany them will be improved as a result of passage of this bill. The provisions of this bill moreover will help us better serve retirees who have served us so nobly in their careers. Indeed, this bill will make notable contributions to the security of the United States and to defending our country's interests around the world. But I want to take this opportunity to note my concern regarding a couple of matters contained in or related to the provisions of this bill.

The Committee has authorized the funding for the Kilo Wharf project at Naval Base Guam, but has directed a phased approach to executing this project. The administration opposes this approach. I share these concerns. I am particularly concerned that the funding for this project will receive further cuts as this bill proceeds through the legislative process. I encourage the Department of the Navy to redouble its efforts to ensure that this project can proceed according to plan and to engage with me in dialogue regarding potential barriers to success for it. The Kilo Wharf project is critical to increasing wharf capacity at Naval Base Guam. Guam offers the United States Armed Forces a strategic location to counter threats posed by the People's Republic of China, North Korea, and al Qaeda affiliated terrorist forces in Southeast Asia. Further funding reductions for the Kilo Wharf project will negatively impact the ability of our commander to re-fit and re-supply vessels operating in, and to respond to contingencies, in the region.