Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that the land on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs, West LA VA, campus is protected for the use of America's Veterans.

The bill would: require the VA Secretary to provide the Congressional Appropriations and Veterans Committees a comprehensive report regarding the master plan for the West LA VA facility and connected property.

The VA was required under Public Law 105-368 to develop a master plan for the West LA VA property.

If the VA has failed to developed the plan, the legislation requires it to complete a master plan prior to implementing any action based on the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative.

The VA would be prohibited from issuing any enhanced-use lease agreements for the West LA VA property until the master plan is completed and submitted to Congress.

Prevent the VA Secretary from implementing any portion of the master plan until 120 days after the submission of the plan to the Appropriations and Veterans Committees.

In addition, the Secretary would be expressly prohibited from pursuing development initiatives regarding the West LA VA property not relating to direct Veterans services unless explicitly authorized by Congress through legislation.

Direct Veterans services are defined in this legislation as any services ``directly related'' to maintaining the health, welfare, and support of Veterans.

Last year, the Senate approved similar language in the FY07 MILCON/VA Appropriations bill that required the VA to provide the Appropriations Committees a report on the master plan for the West LA VA Medical Center and connected land.

The fiscal year 2007 MILCON/VA Appropriations Act passed the Senate on November 18, 2006.

Unfortunately, all but 2 of the 11 Appropriations bills--including MILCON/VA--were ultimately packaged together in a Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 2007, and the language was never considered by the full Congress.

The bill I am introducing today is absolutely essential in light of a number of unacceptable actions that have previously been taken by the VA that, in my view, violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Last month, I joined with my colleagues Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Henry Waxman in writing a letter to VA Secretary James Nicholson strongly objecting to recent decisions by the VA relating to the West LA VA facility and land.

Over the past year alone, the VA has permitted the construction of a facility for the Fox Entertainment Group on the West LA VA property, and has approved a lease agreement with Enterprise Car Rental to operate on the campus.

In addition, the VA has allowed the Westside Shepherd of the Hill Church to rent a building on the property in which to hold its Sunday services and provided additional housing space for the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA).

The VA reportedly has also considered lease projects such as movie productions, a drive-in theather, a circus event, and a golf course.

This must be put to a stop and the legislation I introduce today would do just that.

For too long, commercial interests have trumped the needs of our Veterans.

These 400 acres of land were donated to the government in 1888 specifically for Veterans and should remain that way--just as then-VA Secretary Anthony Principi promised during a visit to Los Angeles in February 2002.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today along with Senator Boxer as cosponsor to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of expanding the Santa Monica National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor.

The Rim of the Valley Corridor is an example of a highly threatened habitat area, the Mediterranean chaparral ecosystem. Connecting to the adjacent Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests, the Corridor encircles the San Fernando Valley, La Crescenta, Simi, Conejo, and Santa Clarita Valleys, consisting of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, and San Rafael Hills.

There is a great need for expanded parkland in southern California. While the Los Angeles metropolitan region has the second-largest urban concentration in the United States, the area has one of the lowest ratios of park-and-recreation-lands per thousand-population of any urban area in the country.

Since the creation of the Santa Monica Recreation Area in 1978, Federal, State, and local authorities have worked successfully together to create and maintain the highly successful Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, hemmed in on all sides by development.

With the passage of this legislation, Congress will hold true to its original commitment to preserve the scenic, natural, and historic setting of the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area.

With the inclusion of the Rim of the Valley Corridor in the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, greater ecological health and diversity will be promoted, particularly for larger animals like mountain lions, bobcats, and the golden eagle. By creating a single contiguous Rim of the Valley Trail, people will enjoy greater access to existing trails in the Recreational Area.

Within a National Recreation Area, the National Park Service is prohibited from exercising the powers of eminent domain, and private property may be purchased from voluntary sellers only.

The bill includes a provision directing the Department of the Interior to analyze any effects that a proposed expansion of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area will have on private land within or bordering the area. Any such effects will be thoroughly considered as the study moves forward.

After the study called for in this bill is complete, the Secretary of the Interior and Congress will be in a key position to determine whether all or portions of the Rim of the Valley Corridor warrant inclusion in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman Adam Schiff plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his commitment to this issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this proposed legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize water recycling and other water supply projects by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Cucamonga Valley Water District. These projects will produce approximately 95,000 acre-feet of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States, reducing the need for imported water from the Colorado River and northern California through the California Water Project.

The federal investment required is limited to approximately 10 percent of the projects' cost, or about $30 million.

This legislation is intended to be the companion to H.R. 122, sponsored by David Dreier, Grace Napolitano, Ken Calvert, Joe Baca, and Gary Miller.

This legislation has broad support and has already passed the House, and in fact similar legislation to H.R. 122 also passed the House of Representatives in each of the previous two Congresses.

It is time for this legislation to pass the Senate as well and be enacted into law. Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly support the water recycling and groundwater remediation projects in this bill. Business leaders such as Southern Cal Edison and Building Industry Association also support these projects.

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative would authorize two project components. The first will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency--IEUA--and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District--CVWD--will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new water annually.

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana--through the Fontana Water Company--Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga-- through the Cucamonga Valley Water District--and the Monte Vista Water District.

I want to say a few words about the importance of water recycling projects.

The development of recycled water can bring significant amounts of water ``on line'' in a relatively short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with the ability to ``stretch'' existing water supplies significantly and in so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist. According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an estimated 1.5 million acre- feet of new supplies being developed over the next 25 years.

Water recycling is also a bipartisan initiative in California, as witnessed by the many Republican and Democratic House cosponsors of the House versions of the bill I introduce today.

Water recycling also has significant greenhouse gas reduction benefits. The greenhouse gas emission reductions attributed to local development and use of recycled water within Inland Empire Utilities Agency's service area is roughly 100,000 tons of CO2 equivalents per year.

With only a small percentage of the total recycled water available being used in Southern California, approximately 10 percent, there is a huge potential for additional energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions from aggressive development of recycled water supplies.

California is not the only State engaged in water recycling. Today, water recycling is an essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, EI Paso, San Antonio, Portland, and other western metropolitan areas.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill to help meet the West's water supply needs and to reduce our dependence on the Colorado River. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise, along with my Senate Cancer Coalition cochair, Senator Brownback, to introduce the National Cancer Act of 2007, a bipartisan blueprint for winning the war against cancer.

It includes: grants for targeted drug development; creating ``cancer quarterbacks'' in Medicare; Medicaid coverage for smoking cessation treatments; pilot projects for expanding colorectal cancer screening in underserved populations; continued research into the possible benefits of early detection for lung cancer; loan repayment assistance for cancer prevention researchers; incentives for research into drugs that

prevent cancer from developing and spreading in the first place; provisions to promote the collection and storage of tissue sample, to give researchers the tools they need to use genomic research to create individualized cures; promoting access to clinical trials, as well as investigational therapies for those who are terminally ill; addressing the health needs of the growing number of cancer survivors.

Just over 35 years ago, President Nixon signed into law the original National Cancer Act, creating the National Cancer Institute and making cancer research a priority of the Federal Government. This work has led to tremendous breakthroughs against cancer, including innovative drugs, treatments, and a better understanding of the factors that lead to cancer in the first place. Last year, death rates decreased for 11 of the 15 cancers most common in men, and 10 of the cancers most common in women.

Sixty-five percent of people diagnosed with cancer can now expect to survive at least 5 years. This is good news. But it is not enough. The cost of cancer, in both human and economic terms, remains staggering.

An estimated 1,399,790 Americans were diagnosed with some form of cancer last year.

Approximately 1 of 3 women will develop cancer at some point in her lifetime; for men, the risk is slightly less than 1 in 2.

The National Institutes of Health estimated the overall cost of cancer in 2005 at $209.9 billion.

The price of inaction is too steep. Cancer is, first and foremost, a disease of aging. About 76 percent of cancer cases are diagnosed in patients at age 55 or older. If no fundamental changes are made, the aging of the Baby Boom generation will bring a 20 percent increase in cancer diagnoses.

In the face of these challenges, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, with broad support in the cancer community, set the ambitious goal of ending death and suffering from cancer by 2015. This goal has generated unprecedented excitement and unity, with over 80 Members of the United States Senate signing a letter in support of the effort.

It is time to reexamine and reorient our Nation's cancer policy to meet this ambitious goal. This does not mean that cancer will be eradicated by 2015. As our population ages, cancer will not go away. But we can change the meaning of a cancer diagnosis, and that is what the 2015 goal is about.

Meeting this goal will take a comprehensive approach. It requires detecting cancer earlier, before it spreads and becomes harder to treat. It requires targeted therapies, capable of killing cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact. We must provide access to high quality cancer care for those who do get sick. We must also understand more about why people get cancer in the first place, and ways it can be prevented.

Our legislation takes a multifaceted approach to changing the very nature of a cancer diagnosis. The National Cancer Act of 2007 will do the following:

Authorize grants for the development of targeted drugs.

New drug therapies continue to lead us closer to the day in which cancer is a treatable, chronic condition controlled with a simple pill or injection. It has now been 5 years since the drug company Novartis won approval for Gleevec, a targeted drug that has saved the lives of countless patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, CML.

Gleevec demonstrates the promise of this new kind of drug therapy. It blocks the enzymes that help cancer cells grow and divide, leaving healthy cells untouched. When this drug was first introduced, CML patients who were near death recovered and left the hospital. Yet it could not be determined if their remission would last, or if long-term use of this revolutionary drug would prove safe.

We now know that Gleevec is fulfilling this early promise. Before the advent of this drug, CML patients would often suffer a relapse after 2 or 3 years. But a recent study of CML patients taking Gleevec has demonstrated a remarkable 89 percent survival rate after 5 years. The cancer progressed to a more serious stage in only 7 percent of patients during this time period, and only 5 percent were forced to discontinue treatment because of side effects.

These results suggest that patients may be able to stay on Gleevec indefinitely, keeping this formerly deadly cancer under control while leading full and productive lives.

Targeted therapies are now offering hope to patients with many different kinds of cancer: Herceptin for some breast cancers, Iressa for those with small cell lung cancer, Avastin for colorectal cancer. Avastin can extend survival by interfering with the growth of blood vessels that feed the tumor, literally starving it.

These drugs are the future of cancer research. We need more drugs like Gleevec, which transform cancer from a killer to a controllable health condition. This legislation would authorize NCI to make grants to further develop these treatments.

To help with the development of targeted drugs, the bill also calls for the establishment of a task force on surrogate endpoints and biomarkers. They are the mechanisms for measuring the efficacy of cancer treatment at the molecular level, allowing doctors to precisely gauge how a patient is reacting to a treatment, or if a cancer is progressing.

Developing biomarkers for different types of cancer is an essential step, and our bill will establish a program to develop the biomarkers with the most immediate clinical promise.

The bill will also create special reimbursements for coordinating physicians, or ``cancer quarterbacks'' in Medicare. Successful cancer treatment is increasingly complex, reaching across the entire spectrum of the medical profession. It can involve lab tests, CT-scans, surgery, chemotherapy, and a full team of specialists who offer this care. Many patients have no single physician who can guide them through the complicated and sometimes contradictory course of cancer treatment, no professional to advise them what is best.

This bill would require Medicare to pay oncology doctors or nurses to become the overall managers of patients' care, in effect providing every cancer patient with a ``cancer quarterback'' physician to help them coordinate care and make the necessary decisions.

This cancer quarterback can direct care in the manner that best meets the patient's needs, instead of focusing on only a small segment of his or her care.

This legislation requires that State Medicaid drug programs cover smoking cessation treatments in the same manner as all other approved therapies. I have long believed that we will not truly address the burden of cancer until we address tobacco use. I have asked all kinds of cancer experts about what we can do to stop death from cancer, and their answer is always the same: Stop tobacco use.

Tobacco causes 30 percent of cancer deaths and 1 in 5 of all deaths in the United States. It is the leading cause of preventable death. Smoking related costs total $167 billion annually.

According to the CDC, more than 70 percent of American smokers would like to quit. Studies indicate that tobacco use treatment, including smoking cessation aids, will double their chances of success.

Yet under current law, State Medicaid programs are exempted from providing coverage of smoking cessation agents in the same way as they provide coverage of other drugs. Other exemptions include fertility treatments, drugs to promote hair growth, and drugs for erectile dysfunction.

Simply put, smoking cessation aids, which are FDA approved and proven to be effective, do not belong on this list. Denying people access to treatments to help them break a deadly and expensive addiction is flawed policy.

Our bill will remove tobacco cessation products from this list of exemptions, leveling the playing field with other FDA approved products.

Our bill establishes pilot projects for expanding colorectal cancer screening for low-income, uninsured individuals. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has proven very successful in providing low income women with access to potentially life saving screenings. It is now time to provide similar access to colorectal cancer screening.

The need is great. A 2006 study conducted by Northwestern University researchers found that only 7 percent of minority patients without regular

health care access at risk for developing colon cancer are being screened. A 2005 study of New York City residents found that those least likely to have been recommended colorectal screening are low- income or uninsured.

Early detection allows physicians to identify patients with pre- cancerous polyps, and treat them before cancer even develops. These pilot projects identify the best ways to provide access to this lifesaving care for those who are not currently receiving recommended screenings.

This bill will authorize continued research on the potential of CT scans to detect lung cancer early. before it becomes fatal. Despite all the promising advances against many types of cancer, lung cancer remains the Nation's leading cause of cancer death in both men and women. About 20,000 people who have never smoked are diagnosed with lung cancer each year, and this number is increasing.

We need to learn more about how to screen for lung cancer and detect it early, before it has advanced. There is much we need to learn before scientists can make a definitive recommendation about screening and its potential benefits for both smokers and non-smokers.

To help scientists learn more, this bill will authorize funding to provide CT scans to those with a history of heavy smoking. This further study will help determine whether this promising technology is indeed the method we need to make progress against the leading cancer killer.

This legislation expands the existing NIH loan repayment program to provide assistance to researchers who make a commitment to working on cancer prevention research. This will encourage the best and brightest to pursue work that will help us to better understand what causes cancer and how we can stop it from occurring.

The bill will encourage and support research into new drugs and treatments, called chemopreventatives, which can stop precancerous cells from becoming tumors. Decades of research has enabled physicians to prescribe medications to prevent serious illness, such as statin drugs to lower cholesterol, and drugs to treat high blood pressure before it leads to strokes.

Progress in drug development to stop cancer has been far more limited. The promise of this field was made clear when, last year, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, licensed Gardasil, a vaccine to stop the spread of cervical cancer. Gardasil protects against the two forms of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which causes approximately 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. This vaccine could virtually eliminate cervical cancer during the lifetime of our daughters and granddaughters.

We need more chemoprevention techniques like Guardasil to guard against other types of cancer. People at high risk for a specific type of cancer may one day take a daily pill to stop abnormal cells from progressing to full blown cancer. Though it will take a long time for these promises to become reality, this research is the future of cancer care.

In order to encourage this work, our legislation would grant Orphan Drug Act protections to treatments designed to treat high-risk conditions in individuals who have not yet been diagnosed with cancer, but if left untreated, face a high risk of developing cancer.

This research will require new resources in order to have the best chance of success. To build the foundations for success, our bill will encourage biospecimen collection.

Scientists are beginning to understand the significant role that genetics plays in the development of cancer. To encourage further study, scientists need access to a variety of tissue, blood, and other samples from both cancer patients and those who are healthy. Our bill codifies guidelines for the collection of these samples and requires that the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, draft a report examining potential payment systems for these activities.

We are on the cusp of an age of personalized medicine, in which a cancer patient's tumor can be analyzed to determine what type of treatment will be most effective. Patients will no longer undergo round after round of chemotherapy or radiation in the hopes of finding a treatment regime that works. Collecting and storing blood and tissue samples will provide our researchers with the materials they need to make these important discoveries.

Our bill will promote clinical trial enrollment. Patients willing to try these cutting edge cancer therapies as they emerge face a variety of obstacles. They, or their physicians, might not know what clinical trial opportunities exist. They may need to travel to a far away facility to participate. Our legislation requires the Director of the National Cancer Institute to create a clinical trials program, which includes: an outreach program, to assure that all patients, especially minorities, participate in trials; and a coordination program, to help patients with logistical challenges and the support costs of trial participation.

Our bill creates an oncology compassionate access program. No patient should lose a battle with cancer because bureaucratic hurdles denied him or her access to a potentially lifesaving therapy. Our bill provides for the creation of a new compassionate access program to speed access of investigational therapies for terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other available treatment options.

Our bill will address the needs of a growing number of cancer survivors. As cancer increasingly becomes a manageable, chronic condition, there will be an increasing number of cancer survivors confronting yet-unknown health challenges. Current cancer survivors number almost 10 million, and this number will only grow. This bill will: expand current cancer surveillance systems to track the health status of cancer survivors; implement a national cancer survivorship action plan, including post treatment health programs; require States to consider the needs of cancer survivors, and their families, in addition to current patients, when drafting their comprehensive cancer control plans.

Require the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, to report on their strategies, benchmarks, and progress in meeting the 2015 goal. This will allow Congress to adjust policy as necessary to ensure that the promise of ending death and suffering from cancer is realized.

The state of cancer care has changed drastically since 1971, and it is time that our Federal policies reflect these changes. The 2015 goal is ambitious, and it requires no less than ambitious legislation in response.

I urge you to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Collins and Snowe to introduce legislation that will significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from our Nation's transportation sector.

This bill would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from passenger vehicles and motor vehicle fuels by 22 percent below projected levels under business as usual by 2030. This reduction is equivalent to the removal of 662 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or taking over 108 million cars off the road for a year. This would save 3.6 million barrels of oil per day by 2030.

It would achieve these reductions by requiring a: 3 percent reduction in emissions from the motor vehicle fuel pool by 2015, with an additional 3 percent reduction every 5 years, and 30 percent reduction in vehicle tailpipe emissions by 2016, with additional reductions every 5 years.

Highway vehicles are responsible for 32 percent of annual U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary global- warming gas. And, motor vehicle emissions will continue to increase as more and more Americans purchase vehicles and the number of miles driven grows.

With more than 240 million motor vehicles on the road, producing 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, increasing our use of low carbon fuels is an essential part of a climate-safe transportation strategy.

So, the signs could not be clearer: It's time to sound the death- knell for the era of gas-guzzling motor vehicles. It is time to utilize improved vehicle technology and to increase access to cleaner, renewable fuels at the pump.

First, this bill will achieve this goal by increasing the availability of low carbon emitting fuels for motor vehicles.

We must start considering fuel emissions not only in terms of emissions produced at the tailpipe, but also in terms of the emissions generated by the production and transportation of fuels. The total emissions of a fuel,

from production to end-use, are known as the ``lifecycle emissions'' of a fuel.

Not all fuels are created equal in terms of emissions; in fact, not all fuels within a give fuel category are created equal.

For example, ethanol produced from corn emits only about 10 to 20 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy delivered compared to petroleum-based gasoline. In contrast, ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass achieves an 80 to 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy.

Electricity would also qualify as an alternative fuel under this bill. The lifecycle emissions of electricity produced by traditional coal-fired power plants will be far greater than that produced by wind or other zero-carbon electricity generation technologies.

By 2009, this bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to quantify the total lifecycle emissions of all motor vehicle fuels. The bill would also require EPA to develop a fuel labeling process to provide this information to consumers at the pump.

Armed with this information about the lifecycle emissions of different fuels, oil refiners and importers would be required to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of their entire fuel pool by 3 percent below projected levels by 2015. And, every 5 years thereafter, emissions would be cut by an additional 3 percent.

To help fuel providers meet the mandated emissions reductions in a cost-effective manner, the bill would establish a carbon-credit trading market.

This would reduce emissions from motor vehicle fuels by 10 percent below projected levels by 2030 and would increase the supply of low- carbon fuels such as biodiesel, E-85, hydrogen, electricity, and others.

Second, the bill would achieve reductions in transportation sector emissions by federalizing California's landmark tailpipe emissions standard. California passed a landmark law in 2002 that required a reduction in tailpipe emissions and was the first State in the country to do so. This would require automakers to reduce tailpipe emissions, such as carbon dioxide, by 30 percent by 2016. It will also require EPA to tighten the reductions every 5 years.

Combined, these provisions would achieve a 22 percent reduction in transportation sector emissions below projected levels by 2030.

Additional provisions in the bill mandate: auto manufacturers to optimize dual-fueled vehicles to improve their fuel economy when running on alternative fuels, and alternative fuel vehicles, and only alternative fuel vehicles, come with a green fuel cap. This would alert consumers that these vehicles can accept other fuels besides traditional gasoline.

Just as it is necessary to reduce emissions in the electricity and industrial sectors, it is equally necessary to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. This bill makes significant, yet feasible, strides to reduce emissions through upgrades in vehicle technology and the incorporation of lower lifecycle emission fuels into the motor vehicle fuel pool. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity today to introduce an important piece of legislation to improve the ability of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide medical care for our Nation's Armed Forces and veterans. We are currently finishing up a debate in the Senate on additional war time funding for Iraq. As in past years, we are trying to mitigate the damage caused by the failure to properly plan for and manage the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall. I have spoken many times about how damaging this lack of planning has been to our efforts in Iraq and to our standing in the world.

For the past two months, the spotlight has shone on another administration failure in this war: the shameful conditions our wounded soldiers face as outpatients navigating the military health system when they return from Iraq or Afghanistan. This is another example of gross mismanagement and a strained system. To alleviate the strain on this system, I am offering legislation today--the Effective Care for the Armed Forces and Veterans Act--to improve the care that members of the Armed Forces and veterans receive at Walter Reed and other military medical facilities.

The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that some of the reasons for concern at Walter Reed do not occur in the future. As the living conditions for outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center indicate, moving to private contracts for maintenance at military medical facilities can cause problems. After a private contract was awarded for maintenance and upkeep of buildings on the campus of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a maintenance crew of approximately 300 was whittled down to 50 by the time the contract went in to effect. Many of the terrible living conditions in Building 18 that we read about in the Washington Post were a direct result of delays in building repair and maintenance because of a shortage in manpower. To prevent this situation from occurring again, this legislation calls for public- private competitions of maintenance services at military medical complexes to stop while our country is engaged in military conflicts. It also calls for a General Accountability Office review of contracting-out decisions for basic maintenance work at military facilities.

Other problems discovered at Walter Reed are directly attributable to shortages resulting from pressures to cut budgets for military medical services. These cuts cannot be tolerated at a time when military medical services are needed to treat servicemembers who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, this legislation would require medical command budgets to be equal to or exceed the prior year amount while the nation is involved in a major military conflict or war.

Another issue that the conditions at Walter Reed brought up is whether or not the facility should be closed as the Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended. The Commission recommended building new, modern facilities at the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda and at Fort Belvoir to improve the overall quality of care and access to care in this region. Military leaders have indicated that the planned closure has limited their ability to attract needed professionals to jobs at Walter Reed and there have been concerns raised whether adequate housing for the families of the wounded has been properly planned. To deal with that, this legislation requires the Department of Defense to submit to Congress within one year a detailed plan that includes an evaluation of the following: the desirability of being able to guarantee professional jobs in the D.C. area for two years or more following the closure in order to foster a stable workforce; detailed construction plans for the new facilities and for new family housing; and the costs and benefits of building all of the needed medical treatment, rehabilitation, and housing before a single unit is moved.

Another major problem and source of frustration for injured soldiers is the length of time it takes to receive a disability determination. In order to hasten the disability determination process, we need to ensure that the Department of Defense has information systems capable of communicating with those in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA has been a leader in implementing electronic medical record keeping, but we have to improve the capability of the Department of Defense to send electronic medical records to the VA to speed up the disability determination process. Making the disability determination system more efficient can reduce the stress on the soldiers and their families going through the determination process.

Caseworkers are also critical. They schedule appointments and make sure wounded servicemembers get the rehabilitative and follow-up care they need. As more and more soldiers and marines come home wounded, many military caseworkers are overwhelmed. To improve the care given to servicemembers, this legislation requires a minimum ratio of case managers to patients of 1 to 20, that case managers have contact with recovering servicemembers at least once a week, and that case managers be properly trained on the military's disability and discharge systems so they can better assist patients with their paperwork.

Currently, many combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have service-related mental health issues like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Many have labeled TBI the ``signature injury'' of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. It is estimated that as many as 10 percent of those serving or who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have brain injuries. That

would mean about 150,000 of the 1.5 million soldiers and marines who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom have suffered a brain injury. In many cases, these injuries are not diagnosed because there is not an external wound. Depending on the severity of these injuries, returning soldiers can require immediate treatment or not have symptoms show up until several years later. This legislation calls for every returning soldier to be screened for TBI. While the VA has announced plans to do this, it needs to happen in active-duty military medical facilities too. In addition, the legislation calls for a study on the advisability of treating TBI as a presumptive condition in every service's disability evaluation system, as well as the VA disability evaluation system.

We often hear about the 25,000 soldiers and marines who have been wounded in these wars--but that figure grossly underestimates the demand that the VA health care system faces. Since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, more than 1.5 million soldiers have been deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations. Of these, 630,000 are now veterans and, according to the Department of Defense, more than 205,000 have already received medical treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs. A recent Harvard study on the long-term costs of treating these new veterans estimates that by 2012 more than 643,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan will be using the VA system, an almost three-fold increase of what the system faces now. With a significant backlog of claims currently existing, the system is in desperate need of an upgrade. To address this concern, my legislation directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a plan for the long-term care needs for veterans for the next 50 years.

It is our highest obligation to heal the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who will bear the physical and emotional scars of these wars for the rest of their lives. Those of us who have the privilege of serving in Congress must act now to improve the medical care we provide to our Armed Forces and veterans.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing The American Automobile Industry Promotion Act of 2007 to jump-start next generation battery technology development in the United States and extend incentives to American-made highly efficient vehicles.

This legislation authorizes $100 million a year for 5 years to advance new battery technology--an amount double the administration's current budget request. On a national and international level, we must do whatever it takes to help our domestic auto manufacturers remain competitive.

Right now, the Japanese dominate the market for lithium ion batteries because they invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing this technology and in supporting their domestic industry. And, the Koreans and the Chinese are not far behind. American auto manufacturers are playing catch-up and we need to move quickly.

Specifically, I am proposing to support the development of advanced electric components, systems and vehicles, by providing funds for battery research to national laboratories, small businesses, and institutes of higher learning. The bill will also establish, through a competitive selection process, an Industry Alliance of private, U.S. based, for-profit firms whose primary business is battery development. The Industry Alliance would be an advisory resource on short and long term battery technology development.

The new research initiative will have four major areas of focus: (1) Research and Development including battery technology, high-efficiency charging systems, high-powered drive-train systems, control systems and power train development, and nanomaterial technology for battery and fuel cell systems. (2) Demonstration. The initiative also creates a demonstration program which would devote resources toward demonstration, testing and evaluation of hybrid electric vehicles for many different applications including military, mass market passenger and SUV vehicles. (3) Education. The initiative will support curriculum development in secondary, high school, as well as higher education institutions that focus on electric drive systems and component engineering. (4) Testing. Finally, the initiative would work with the EPA to develop testing and certification procedures for criteria pollutants, fuel economy, and petroleum use in vehicles.

In addition to research and development for the lithium ion battery, the American Automobile Industry Promotion Act will also set a national standard for biodiesel, a cleaner-burning fuel made from natural and renewable sources; and expand tax credit eligibility for consumers who purchase more fuel-efficient diesel vehicles. Today's diesels are cleaner than their predecessors, are in compliance with EPA emissions standards, and are 30 percent more fuel efficient than an equivalent gasoline engine. Specifically, the bill expands the emissions requirements to qualify for a tax credit for various weight diesel vehicles, increasing the number of American-manufactured more fuel efficient diesel vehicles that qualify. This provision would expire in four years, at which time all highly efficient vehicles will have to meet higher emissions standards to qualify for the tax credit.

Now is the time to act. It's not too late, but we do not have the luxury of waiting. If we are ever to be truly competitive in the global auto market and free from our dependence on foreign oil, we must move forward on all fronts.

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

Mr. President, I introduce today with my colleagues Senators Specter, Brownback, and Leahy the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007, which takes direct aim at reducing recidivism rates by improving the transition of offenders from prison back into the community. As this bill reflects, preventing recidivism is not only the right thing to do, it makes our communities safer and it saves us money.

Today, we have over two million individuals in our Federal and State prisons and millions more in local jails. Our Federal and State prisons will release nearly 650,000 of these offenders back into our communities this year. A staggering \2/3\ of released State prisoners will be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release.

It's not difficult to see why. These ex-offenders face a number of difficult challenges upon release. The unemployment rate among former inmates is as high as 60 percent; 15-27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly before prison. This addiction and dependency often continues during incarceration.

Unless we address these problems, these individuals will commit hundreds of thousands of serious crimes after their release, and our communities will bear the human and economic cost. If we are going to reduce recidivism and crime, we simply have to make concerted, common- sense efforts now to help ex-offenders successfully reenter and reintegrate into their communities.

The Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007 confronts head-on the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills. Through commonsense and cost effective measures, it offers a second chance for ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them, and it strengthens our communities and ensures safe neighborhoods.

The Second Chance Act provides a competitive grant program to study current approaches to reducing recidivism rates. It also provides grants for the development and implementation of comprehensive substance abuse treatment programs, academic and vocational education programs, housing and job counseling programs, and mentoring for offenders who are approaching release and who have been released. To ensure accountability, the bill requires grantees to establish performance goals and benchmarks and report the results to Congress.

The bill authorizes $192 million per year in competitive grant funding. This represents an investment in our future and an acknowledgement of the problem we face. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds $20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. That's more than a six-fold increase, and the costs keep going up.

A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts today is far more cost-effective than the alternative--building more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they can't reenter their communities and are convicted of further crimes. An ounce of prevention, as the saying goes, is worth a pound of cure.

I'm proud today to join with Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, and Senator Leahy in introducing the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act and ask that our colleagues join with us in this vital effort. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 65, legislation to grant the Lumbee Indians Federal recognition.

In the late 1500s, when English ships landed on the shores of Roanoke Island off the coast of North Carolina, the English discovered native Americans. Included among those native Americans were both the Cheraw and Pee Dee Indians, who were direct ancestors of the Lumbee Indians.

Later, in 1888, the Lumbees made their first effort at gaining Federal recognition. For at least 500 years, the Lumbee Indians have been inhabitants of this land; and for over half of that time that our country has been in existence, 119 of the 231 years of our country's history, the Lumbee Indians have been seeking the recognition and respect that they deserve.

As the largest tribe east of the Mississippi and the largest nonrecognized tribe in America, it is unfathomable that this tribe of 55,000 people has never been fully recognized by our government. H.R. 65 would provide equal treatment to the Lumbee tribe by correcting a half-measure that was adopted by this Congress in 1956, 51 years ago on this very day.

The 1956 half-measure acknowledged the Lumbees as Indians but cut off the tribe from the Federal statutes that apply to all other Federally recognized tribes. Every other tribe subjected by Congress to such a half-measure has since been fully recognized by a special act of Congress.

This would only apply to the Lumbees. It will not apply to the other tribes. You may hear arguments to the contrary, but this refers to correcting an injustice done by the Lumbee Act of 1956. So it is applicable only to this tribe.

H.R. 65 would do the same thing for the Lumbee tribe as it has done for two other tribes that were put in a similar circumstance. Thus, H.R. 65 is a long-overdue act of justice that would treat this tribe just like every other tribe in the same position has been treated. There is no question that the Lumbee Indians constitute an Indian tribe.

The State of North Carolina has consistently recognized that since 1885 under a series of State statutes, using different names for the tribe, until 1952, when the tribe held a referendum to decide upon its own name and not take a name imposed on it. They adopted the name Lumbee, drawn from the name of the river that the tribe was found at the time of the first white contact with these Indians in the 1730s.

The State amended its law to recognize the tribe under the name Lumbee in 1953, and that same bill was introduced in Congress to obtain Federal recognition under that same name. Before the Federal bill was enacted, though, Congress amended the bill to include termination language; and, as a result, Congress recognized the tribe in name only at the same time in 1956.

Because of this 1956 half-measure, the Solicitor General of the United States has ruled that the Lumbee tribe is not eligible for the tribal recognition process currently administered by the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Solicitor General has already ruled that the tribe has to come back to Congress to correct this injustice. Congress did it; Congress needs to correct it.

In any case, there's no need to send this back to the BIA. Why? Because the Department of Interior has already studied this tribe 11 separate times and each time has concluded that the Lumbees are indeed Indian, and they are descended principally from the Aboriginal Cheraw Tribe. The Department's own records also show that the modern day Lumbees are the same Indians first recognized by the State of North Carolina back in 1885 and by Congress by name in 1956. So Congress itself has put the Lumbee tribe in the Indian ``No Man's Land'' with the enactment of the 1956 half measure.

Congress has done this in the past to two other tribes, the Tiwas of Texas and the Pascua Yaqui of Arizona. In both cases, Congress has since gone back, passed special statutes extending full recognition to those tribes. So there is direct precedent for this action today, and it only is applicable to the Lumbees, and in all fairness, Congress should do the same for the Lumbees that they've done for other tribes that were in this unique position. This is all that we're asking, for the Lumbee tribe to be treated equally and fairly like every other tribe in this situation has been treated. If this is not done, the Lumbees will continue to be the only tribe in America left in this legal limbo, and that's fundamentally unfair to the Lumbee tribe. The recognition of an Indian tribe has always been done by the United States. Ultimately it's Congress's responsibility. More than half of the 565 tribes now federally recognized were recognized by Congress. And even after the Department of Interior established a separate procedure in 1978, Congress itself has still taken the effort to recognize nine tribes by special legislation when there were special circumstances, which is what we have here, special circumstances.

In 1935, D'Arcy McNickle, the Special Indian Agent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, reported to Congress; this Special Indian Agent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs back in 1935 concluded, ``that they are Indians cannot be doubted,'' and I quote.

So now, in 2007, I trust that you and my colleagues will agree it is time for discrimination to end and recognition to begin. Join me in finally rectifying this wrong. Vote for the rule and vote for recognition for the Lumbee tribe.

Madam Speaker, in answer quickly to the questions raised by my colleague from Connecticut when he says they don't want to go before the BIA because they do the research, that is absolutely incorrect. We have records of 11 studies that the BIA has done and every time concluded this was an Indian tribe.

Secondly, he says this is opening a Pandora's box; what do we say to the other tribes? This deals with one tribe

with a specific statute that the Congress of the United States passed 51 years ago today called the Lumbee Act of 1956. That is what we answer. We are dealing with that specific law dealing with this specific tribe, and we have a specific bill today to answer the injustice Congress has done to this specific tribe that only deals with the Lumbee Tribe.

Third, there must be something, I guess, magical about going to the BIA. He asks, what are we afraid of? The answer is nothing. Not only have 11 studies already been done by the BIA, but the General Accounting Office itself says in conclusion in their own regulations under the law that authorized the BIA, the BIA's recognition process was never intended to be the only way groups could receive Federal recognition, and that is in statutory language itself.

So what are we afraid of? Nothing. They have been through 11 examinations. We are ready to rectify an injustice that occurred 51 years ago today. I believe it is long overdue that Congress do the right thing.

Madam Speaker, I would like to place in the Record at this point three letters which Mr. Rahall referred to from North Carolina's three governors over the last 31 years, both Democrat and Republican, including a former Member of this body, Congressman Jim Martin, who later became governor, as well as Governors Jim Hunt and Mike Easley, who support this effort for the Lumbees.

State of North Carolina,

April 18, 2007.

Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II,

Chair, Natural Resources Committee, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Don Young,

Ranking Member, Natural Resources Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Rahall and Congressman Young: Thank you

for the opportunity to submit written comments about pending

legislation for federal recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of

North Carolina by the Congress of the United States of

America. I believe full federal recognition of the Lumbee

Tribe by Congress is long overdue.

Recognition of and interaction with the Lumbee people as a

unique, distinct Indian tribe began when settlers from

Virginia, South Carolina and Europe first arrived in the Cape

Fear and Pee Dee River Basins after the Tuscarora War (1711-

1715). There, the settlers encountered a well-populated,

cohesive American Indian tribal group situated mostly along

and to the west of what is now known as the Lumber River in

Robeson County. As early as 1890, the U.S. Department of

Interior acknowledged this fact among others as evidence that

the Lumbee people are American Indians.

A proclamation by colonial Governor Matthew Rowan on May

10, 1753 stated that Drowning Creek (Lumber River in Robeson

County) was ``the Indian Frontier.'' Other historical records

of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, including

Revolutionary War pensions for Lumbees who fought for

American independence, attest to the Lumbees as American

Indians.

In 1885, North Carolina's General Assembly passed a bill

recognizing and naming the Lumbee tribe ``Croatan.'' In 1911

the General Assembly changed their name to the ``Indians of

Robeson County'' and in 1913 to ``Cherokee Indians of Robeson

County.'' None of these names was chosen by the tribe. In

1953, the State officially changed the tribe's name to

``Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina'' following a 1952 tribal

referendum requested by the Lumbees and paid for by the State

in which this name was overwhelmingly chosen. These names all

apply to the same American Indian tribe.

For more than a century, North Carolina's Governors,

various state legislators and Members of the North Carolina

Congressional delegation have supported the effort by the

Lumbee Tribe to obtain federal recognition, beginning with a

petition to Congress in 1888. Enclosed are copies of letters

by former Governors James G. Martin (R) and James B. Hunt,

Jr. (D)--my immediate predecessors--attesting to the strong

bipartisan support for federal recognition that the Lumbee

Tribe has enjoyed during the last generation.

In the past, federal recognition has been denied because of

opposition by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of

Interior on budgetary grounds. Each of several federal

investigations into the Lumbees' history, genealogy and

ethnicity has concluded that the Lumbees are in fact American

Indians. It follows that federal recognition should be

authorized for this long-standing American Indian Tribe.

Personally and on behalf of North Carolina, I offer to our

fellow Lumbee citizens and to the Congress our full,

unqualified support for Congressional recognition of the

Lumbee Tribe. I encourage your support for the Lumbee Tribe

and for the adoption of this bill.

I thank the House and the Natural Resources Committee for

holding this hearing and for allowing me to offer written

comments about the Lumbee Tribe recognition bill.

With warm personal regards, I remain

Very truly yours,

Michael F. Easley,

Governor.

Mr. Speaker, just in reference to some of the comments that have been made by those who are hindering the efforts to move forward with recognition of the tribe, let me answer those, because I think it's only in fairness that all of our colleagues who are listening to this debate understand this.

Number one, there is an accusation of bypassing the process. This is not bypassing the process. There have been 11 investigations done, ordered through the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. The tribe itself was ordered not to go any further with this process by the Solicitor General of the United States. The Solicitor General said to the Lumbees, because of the 1956 Lumbee Act, that specific act of Congress, you have got to specifically go back to Congress and get this situation corrected.

Secondly, there's been some comments about the name of the Lumbees. The name was chosen by the tribe prior to ever coming to Congress. The name was ratified by the State of North Carolina, after other names had been imposed upon the tribe. The tribe chose its own name, and when it came to Congress, it was the Lumbee, and that name was acknowledged by virtue of the very title, the Lumbee Act of 1956. So we're not hear today debating the name.

Third, in making any comment that the tribe is uncomfortable with going through the process and then there were comments about no reservation, no language. Well, those are not requirements, even under the BIA process. Those are not criteria. I mean, that's why the Lumbees have made such great contributions to our society. They have been fully integrated, as I outlined in my opening remarks. Medicine and law, banks and business, farms and factories, military, entertainment, athletic accomplishments, like the great Kelvin Samson, coach of the Indiana Hoosiers, who testified in a hearing about this.

And then, fourth, again, the accusation was made, as it was during the Rules debate, that this would open up problems with other tribes. Well, no, my friends, it won't. And please hear this clearly to all those who are listening.

This is dealing with a specific act, the Lumbee Act of 1956. That's why other tribes will not come in here and open the flood gates and demand that we do for them. The Lumbees are the only tribe in America in this situation created because of the 1956 act which the Solicitor General has told them to go back to Congress to correct.

There were two other tribes in this situation, the Tiwas of Texas and the Pascua Yaqui of Arizona. They were in the same situation. They came back to Congress; Congress rectified it.

So what does that mean? Quite simply, the only tribe in America in this situation are the Lumbee tribe. It is high time for us to let this discrimination and injustice end. They've waited 51 years. Today is our opportunity to correct the injustice and proceed with recognition.

If the gentleman would yield.

Twice it passed the House, H.R. 334 on October 28, 1993; prior to that, H.R. 1426 on September 26, 1991. No action was taken in the Senate at that time. Senator Jesse Helms decided to block any passage. Senator Dole, to her credit, when she was elected, the first bill Senator Dole dropped as a U.S. Senator was to recognize this tribe, because she realized this bill had been held up for those 32 years over in the Senate, even though the U.S. House had passed it twice.

So that is why this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort. Senator Dole's bill tracks the same language that we have here in the House. This is an effort we all recognize to correct an injustice that should have never happened.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support the proposed rule to bring this bill, H.R. 65, for consideration. And I certainly would like to commend my good friend, the gentleman from New York, who's managing this legislation, and my good friend from Florida, the opposition, for their being here and to deliberate on the importance of this bill.

Madam Speaker, this is not a Republican or a Democratic piece of legislation. I say this because this bill has the absolute support of the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall, and also the senior ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don Young. So we have bipartisan support to this proposed bill. In fact, over 215 Members have already sponsored this proposed legislation.

And I would be remiss if I did not give special commendation for the outstanding job that the gentleman from North Carolina has put in trying to bring this legislation for the last 6 years I believe, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McIntyre. And I do commend him very much for his leadership and for his sensitivity in bringing this legislation out to the floor.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 65 would extend Federal recognition status to the Lumbee tribe of North Carolina. Several studies undertaken by the Department of the Interior have consistently concluded that the Lumbees are a distinct self-governing Indian community historically located on the Lumbee River in North Carolina.

This legislation is long overdue. Indeed, Congress passed the Lumbee Act of 1956. On its surface, one would deduce that this law was to provide Federal recognition to the Lumbee people. Instead, Congress perversely added a provision making the Lumbee Indian people ineligible for the services provided by the United States to other federally recognized tribes.

Today, we are simply here to rectify this injustice. This bill was reported by the Natural Resources Committee by a vote of 24-7. The tribe agreed to the provision that no gaming operation is ever to be part of their operations if they are ever to be recognized.

Madam Speaker, finally, I would note that the tribe has sought recognition through the current administrative procedure which was developed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which, by the way, was done through Federal regulation. It was not done by statutory mandate by the Congress. But this is not an option for them.

In 1989, the Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior made the determination that the Lumbee Indian people are not eligible for the current process, and the fact that we have to go back to the provisions of the Lumbee Act of 1956. So there is no other option to obtain justice for these people, Madam Speaker.

And let me note that Congress is empowered to recognize Indian tribes, just as we have recently done for the Virginia Indian tribes. There are some 560 federally recognized Indian tribes in our country, and of those, Congress recognized 530 of them.

Madam Speaker, the times that I've met with the many members of this distinguished tribe, they noted to me, they say that many of them have fought, members of that tribe have fought in the defense of our Nation. And for a population of 53,000, and I believe six members of this tribe have already died from this terrible conflict that we're faced with now in Iraq. And to me, that is a way to show the patriotism, and we owe the people this recognition, I submit, Madam Speaker.

I urge my colleagues to support the proposed rule and pass this proposed bill, H.R. 65.

Madam Speaker, I do want to say I do have the highest respect for my good friend and colleague who has just taken the floor. In fact, I do want to commend him as a former Peace Corps volunteer for the islands of Fiji. And, as I said, I don't question some of the dialogue or the conversations or part of the Congressional Record that was taken from previous Congresses and other Members of Congress in the previous years in dealing with the issue. But let me share with my colleagues the situation of how we have dealt with the American Indians.

Madam Speaker, I submit our first policy, our first national policy, was to kill the Indians. Get rid of them.

Following that, our next policy was let's assimilate the Indians, make them all part of America.

And then, guess what? The next policy was to terminate the Indians. Don't give them any sense of recognition as a people.

These are our national policies in eras and periods of how we have dealt with Native Americans. So now the fourth policy that we now enunciated is let's find a system or procedure of how we can recognize them as Indian tribes.

Let me share with my colleagues what happened on that specific day when we held a hearing on the Lumbee Indians. This was years ago. One of the tribal chiefs of the Lumbee Indians testified before our committee and said they had to examine their teeth, their teeth, to see if they looked like Indians and having a certain structure of their facial features to make them look like Indians.

I must submit, Madam Speaker, the process that my good friend talks about was not developed until 1975 and thereafter. And the very person who wrote the regulation where these Indian tribes had to meet seven criteria in order for this Indian process to be completed and they would say now you are federally recognized, well, the person who wrote that regulation made a submission before our committee and said, even I would not have been able to submit an application if this is what we have to go through as the process. It is the most expensive process that we have had to burden Indian tribes to come up with.

And I must say, Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my good friend from Connecticut, I don't doubt his sincerity in terms of what he said. The process has failed. There is no question. But we have just recognized four or five Indian tribes from the State of Virginia. So how does that make it different in the State of North Carolina for this tribe, the Lumbee Indians? Over 100 years these people have been fighting for recognition, and they deserve that recognition, Madam Speaker.

Let me give a bit of history to my colleagues. We held 389 treaties with the American Indians, and guess what? We broke every one of them. That is the kind of history that we have had in dealing with Native Americans. They deserve better, Madam Speaker.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my good friend that I did submit proposed legislation to rectify the process that has failed. But, unfortunately, we have still not taken up the legislation, so I want to try it again.

I will submit to my good friend, Madam Speaker, the situation that, dealing with the Lumbee Indians, the Congress did formally recognize them in 1956 and there was no process in place.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman of our committee and also the distinguished senior member, senior ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska, for their bipartisan support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 65, the proposed legislation to federally recognize the Lumbee Indian tribe of North Carolina. I commend my good friends and colleagues from North Carolina, especially my good friend, Mr. McIntyre, for his perseverance, his leadership and his determination to provide this long-overdue Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe. This is a bipartisanship bill. This is not a Republican or a Democratic bill.

Specifically, H.R. 65 extends Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe and specifies that tribal members will be eligible for Federal benefits. The bill expressly prohibits the Lumbee Tribe from conducting gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or any Federal law. The bill also provides the State of North Carolina with jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters on land owned by or held in trust for the Lumbee Tribe.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. The existence of the Lumbee Tribe as a distinct Indian community is beyond question. They are descended from the Cheraw and related tribes in North Carolina, and they have lived along the Lumber River since the first white settlers lived in the area. Even today, the tribal members live in a tightly knit community, mostly in Robeson County, North Carolina. Lumbees have been recognized by the State of North Carolina since 1885, and the tribe has been seeking Federal recognition for nearly 120 years.

This legislation is necessary to remedy the inequity created by this very institution. The Congress of the United States of America passed a law in 1956 which federally recognized the Lumbee Tribe but at the same time prohibited the application of Federal programs available like it has done for other American Indian tribes. This act has been interpreted in the courts as conveying Federal recognition and termination of the tribe at the same time but has prevented the Department of Interior from providing Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe through the administrative process. As a result, the only recourse available for this tribe is to seek relief from the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I need not remind my colleagues that the authority to deal with all matters affecting the welfare and needs of the first Americans or American Indians is expressly stated under provisions of clause 3, section 8, article 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

I want to share with my colleagues some questions, perhaps, that may have been raised concerning the proposed legislation.

``Question: Is this the first time the Lumbee Tribe has sought Federal recognition?

``Answer: No. This tribe first sought Federal recognition through a petition submitted to Congress in 1899 and in 1956. Congress formally recognized the Lumbee Tribe. However, it effectively terminated its relationship with the tribe at the same time by denying them access to the benefits and privileges that accompany Federal recognition. Since that time, the tribe has had substantial interaction with the Congress. The tribe has also petitioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs for recognition through its administrative process. The Bureau denied this petition, indicating that the tribe is not eligible for the process because of Congress' prior action.

``Question: Why is the tribe not going through the administrative process,'' as it was argued earlier by some of our colleagues?

``Answer: The administrative process is for those groups where it needs to be determined whether or not the group is an Indian tribe.''

I submit to my colleagues, we have not done a very good job in dealing with the first Americans, and I sincerely hope that this proposed legislation will rectify the situation that this tribe has been seeking for over 100 years.

I want to share this proposed bill, which will provide us with an opportunity to address this long-standing injustice that has been done to the Lumbee Indians. I support the Lumbee recognition bill because I believe it is consistent with our responsibility as Members of this great institution to give the members of the Lumbee Tribe their right to be recognized as truly an American Indian tribe.

Let's correct this inequity that has existed now for over 100 years and as a tribute to the six Lumbee Indian soldiers who died recently in the war in Iraq, for which they made the ultimate sacrifice and have given their lives in defense of our Nation. After 100 years, these people have been tortured enough.

I am reminded of the words echoed by a retired Marine general and former colleague from this body, the former gentleman from Guam, Congressman Ben Blaz, a good Republican and a very dear friend of mine. He said, also, this is a statement this gentleman made, his observation also of the unfair treatment of his people in some past history, and this is about sending all the tribes that we have here in America and I know are great warriors, because that's the inherent character of the first Americans. They are warriors.

This is what Congressman Ben Blaz says. ``We are equal in war, but not in peace.''

Give the Lumbee Indians what they deserve, recognition as they should get from this great institution.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to do a dialogue here.

I'm quite sure that our good friend, the senior ranking member from Alaska, as well as our chairman, previously, this House has passed recognition of the Lumbee people, the Indians, I think twice already in the time when even former Congressman Charlie Rose was a Member of this great institution. And if I recall, I would like to ask the gentleman, it did pass the House of Representatives. But what happened afterwards? Twice. And then it was referred to the Senate. Maybe my colleagues, our colleagues need to know, to

find out what happened when it went to the Senate. Twice we've passed this legislation and when it was referred to the Senate, what happened?

Absolutely, I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I wish I had just come to Congress, because then I could believe what I'm hearing from the other side of the aisle. I could have total ignorance about the past and feel comfortable with what we're doing. The problem is I've been here 20 years, and I know what we're doing. We are returning to the old ways under the Democratic Party that bypassed the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and lots of people made lots of money in the process.

This is not an open rule. This is not a restricted rule. This is a closed rule. And for a freshman Member of Congress to stand up and justify a closed rule and not even allow a debate on whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be involved blows me away.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, if it needs to be fixed, how are you going to know about it unless you have a debate?

But you don't want a debate. You want a closed rule. You do not want a debate about this issue. And why? It's pretty obvious.

If you look at the record, it's very different than what was described. If you talk about what happened, it's very different than what was described.

When it came before the committee in the 1950s, the Member bringing it out, Mr. Carlyle, said, ``Now, I should like for you to recall that there's nothing in this bill that requests one penny of appropriation of any kind. There is nothing in this bill that would call for any upkeep or expenditure. It just simply relates to the name of these people of that county.''

And then we go on.

The first question that was asked by Mr. Aspinall: ``What are the tribal origins of these Indians?''

And then he asks: ``I can understand that they may have some Indian blood to that effect, but surely they have some Indian blood in their veins from other acknowledged tribes of the day.''

``Mr. Carlyle: `I think perhaps I have a member of that race here who would be able to answer that question.'

``Mr. Aspinall: `The next question would be: What benefit would they expect to get from this? Just purely the name Lumbee Indian Tribe does not appear to me to give too much importance to it, unless they expect to get some recognition later on as members of some authorized tribe and then come before Congress asking for the benefits that naturally go to recognized tribes.'

``Mr. Carlyle: `No one has ever mentioned to me any interest in that, that they had any interest in becoming a part of a reservation or asking the Federal Government for anything. Their purpose in this legislation is to have a name that they think is appropriate for their group. I do not know that they refer to themselves as a tribe. They are citizens who belong to the Indian race, and they were interested in having a name that would have, they think, some significance.' ''

And then he goes on to say: ``Well, I just do not know of any particular tribe of Indians in this country that they claim to be associated with.''

That is the history of the debate.

And then we go to the floor of the House:

``Mr. Ford: `Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I should like to ask the author of the bill, the gentleman from North Carolina, whether or not the bill, if enacted, would in any way whatsoever commit the Federal Government in the future to the furnishing of services or monetary sums.'

``Mr. Carlyle: `Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that the bill does not provide for that, nor is it expected that it will cost the government one penny.'

``Mr. Ford: `There is no obligation involved, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, if this proposed legislation is approved?'

``Mr. Carlyle: `None whatsoever.'

``Mr. Ford: `It simply provides for the change of the name?' ''

That is all the bill did. It wasn't intended to do something else. It wasn't intended to make them a tribe with all the benefits. It was simply to give them a name. And to come before this Chamber and suggest that somehow this bill was to do more is an outrage.

Now, what we are doing today is to bypass the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has to see that there was a political, social, and economic association. That is what this tribe has to prove. But they don't want them to go before the Bureau of Indian Affairs because this is a tribe that had no name. It had no reservation. It had no language.

Now, if I am wrong, then the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be the one to decide. But I would say as strongly as I can say--no one here has the capability to know if this is truly a tribe.

Now, why would we want the Bureau of Indian Affairs to decide whether it is a tribe? Because they study it. They do the research on it. They determine that there is some legitimacy. If you create an Indian tribe that is truly not meeting the Federal standard, you make a mockery of every Indian tribe that exists today that can prove it.

I would just like to close by saying that you are opening up a Pandora's box. You are letting the floodgate in. And the best proof is my colleague from American Samoa who said we just did it a few months ago or weeks ago for someone else. It's no different. Now we do this. And then the next Member is going to come in and say, You did it for them and you did it for them. How come not us?

I know that former Representative Simmons, former Representative Johnson, and I have opposed tribes in our State of Connecticut bypassing the process. If they meet the standard, they should become a tribe. If they don't, they shouldn't. And I would just say to any of my colleagues who may have gotten elected in the meantime that if you allow this to happen you are going to allow a floodgate, and if you have a State-recognized tribe, they are going to come and say, I am a State-recognized tribe. Make me a Federal-recognized tribe. Make me a sovereign nation. Give me all the benefits that true tribes that are federally recognized have.

I encourage my colleagues to vote down this rule, allow an honest debate about the Bureau of Indian Affairs. What are you afraid of? To have a debate about the need to have the Bureau of Indian Affairs look at it? What are you so concerned about? What don't you want the public to know?

This is a closed rule. It is totally restricted, and it is an outrage.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

The arguments we just heard, though, are what frightens me the most. Because my colleague has said the Bureau of Indian Affairs is broken; therefore, Congress should be the ones to decide.

So will you tell me how Congressman Murphy opposes the Schaghticokes when they come and make that argument? Just come to Congress, and if he has the political clout, they become a federally recognized tribe.

What do we say to my colleague, Joe Courtney, who has taken Mr. Simmons place, about the Eastern Pequots? We are saying, go before the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Now they are just going to come to him and say, you did it twice.

What do they say to me with the Golden Hill Paugussetts, who want to build a casino in Bridgeport and want to be recognized as a federally recognized tribe because all three of these tribes have State recognition?

We want to make sure they meet the standard. If they meet the standard, that is fine. But what you have done by your argument is just simply say, don't go through that process. It's broken. We are not going to fix the process. Just come to your Member of Congress and if they have the political clout, get it through. And that is what scares me more than I can express.

I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, why don't we take that up first before we go through this process?

Reclaiming my time, they recognized name only. That is all the tribe asked for. They wanted nothing else. And it wasn't Congress that did it against their objection. They did exactly what they asked for.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, particularly since he supports the bill. I appreciate the courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, I don't speak on this House floor often, and usually it's about things that I can be a little less passionate about. But I feel this passion because I think the House of Representatives is doing something it will deeply regret.

What it's doing is it's bypassing the Bureau of Indian Affairs process in the name of fairness when there is nothing fair about what we are doing. My colleague stood up and said, may God grant us the courage and will to do the right thing. I would like to say the same thing, may God grant us the courage and will to do the right thing.

The right thing sometimes is standing up to your constituents and saying you may be a large group of people, but there is a process. If I bypass the process, then I open up every congressional district to this same political effort.

Now, there are things that are said that are misleading, I won't say untrue, but very misleading. It's true that there were 11 reports or investigations. The problem was, they were never able to pinpoint that there was an historic Indian tribe called the Lumbee or anything else. They were never able to determine that. Now, this group of Indians, not a tribe, but a group, have basically backed off making requests to go through the process.

What they did, in 1956, was they came and requested one thing and one thing only, and we established that in the rules debate. What they requested was to have a name, because they didn't have a name. They don't have a reservation, they don't have a language, they don't have a name.

So Congress gave them a name that they wanted. That's what Congress did. They said, we don't want anything else. There was nothing unfair about what Congress did. Congress did something that they haven't done for other tribes. They gave a name to a tribe that was requesting a name. Indian tribes don't need to have a name. They have a name, they have a history.

Now, we set up the process of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for a reason, because we are creating a sovereign Nation. I just made reference to the fact that there was testimony from the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, the United States Department of Interior, on April 18, and he basically said, please follow the process. You, Congress, established this process. Now, they didn't say this part. They just said, follow the process, and they pointed out that there are seven criteria.

Now, if they follow the process and they don't meet the seven criteria, then they don't become a federally recognized tribe unless Congress then says, you know what, they met six of them, and we think the one they didn't meet would have been hard for them to determine.

But the amendment that we offered, because this is not an open rule, it's not even a restricted rule, it's a closed rule, we can't have this debate. There's a reason why we don't want to have this debate, I guess, and that is that it's uncomfortable to have and deal with the facts. The facts are, no tribe, no reservation, no language, no name.

But Congress, because there are 50,000 people involved, is going to pass legislation creating a tribe. What my colleague has said in the past is, well, we just did it a few weeks ago. What's the big deal? Well, the big deal is, under the Republicans, we didn't do this, because we knew this is a corrupting process.

I would like to know why there aren't more Democrats who are speaking out against this because they oppose their tribes not going through the process. How are we going to say to the Schaghticokes, how are we going to say to the Eastern Pequots, how am I going to say to the Golden Hill Paugusetts, go through the process. But if you are fortunate and you have someone who is articulate about making an argument and has visited 300 Members, and we all like, you know, that's what it takes.

I know, I will say something I am not comfortable saying. I was asked, did the Republicans earn the right to regain Congress? I said, you know what? We didn't earn the right. I, frankly, thought that a new Congress would maybe be a cleansing process and we would get our act together. I just hope and pray that this new Congress does the right thing.