State Veterans Home Modernization Act of 2007

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a joint resolution that would grant the consent of Congress to the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding, IEMAMOU compact. This joint resolution would formally approve of the IEMAMOU compact, a mutual emergency assistance agreement entered into by the New England States, including my home State of Vermont and several Canadian Provinces, who are our neighbors to the north. This mutual assistance compact, which has been agreed to and operating in principle for more than 5 years, allows for cooperation between emergency responders in the United States and Canada during natural disasters and other serious emergencies. This compact is an extraordinary example of the international cooperation and good will which makes our countries more secure and our citizens safer. Congress should pass this joint resolution to give this vital compact the full force of law.

We must all do our best to prepare for the most serious emergencies that can harm our communities. These crises may arise from natural or manmade disasters, or from technological hazards or civil emergencies. As those who live in the Northeast know, extreme weather is not uncommon in New England, or in the eastern Provinces of Canada. Together with our Canadian neighbors, we have endured catastrophic blizzards and ice storms over the years that have closed roads and highways, shut down power for extended periods, and stranded travelers and rural residents for days, or longer. At times, we have also suffered the misfortune of responding to serious accidents, such as train or plane crashes. Of course, our concerns for safety surrounding nuclear powerplants and other industrial sites warrants extensive planning and preparedness for even the possibility of technological disasters. During these events, we turn to our first responders and our emergency management professionals to provide assistance and secure public safety no matter how grave the danger, and no matter how challenging the task.

The IEMMOU compact was created in response to the devastating ice storm of 1998. In January of that year, an unprecedented 3-day ice storm paralyzed portions of the northern New England States and the adjacent Canadian Provinces causing massive damage to the electrical and transportation infrastructure. Millions were left in the dark for days and even weeks, leaving more than 30 dead and shutting down normal activities in large cities like Montreal and Ottawa. Following this devastation, the governors and premiers of those regions affected recognized the need for greater cross-border emergency cooperation, and they directed their emergency management leaders to develop and create a memorandum of understanding on these issues that benefit all parties north and south of the border. The IEMAMOU compact was the result of this collaborative, international process, and now stands as a model compact for cross-border mutual emergency assistance.

The compact allows for international sharing of resources and expertise in times of extreme emergency or disaster. For example, rural States, such as my own, may need to call upon specialized resources found in other larger States or neighboring Provinces to respond immediately to events, such as chemical disasters or mass transit accidents. With natural disasters, such as prolonged, severe winter storms, the areas affected may be so vast, stretching across several States or Provinces that no single jurisdiction alone could respond fully to the crisis. There are also events that occur along or near our border with Canada which require the immediate response and full cooperation of States and Provinces in both nations. The IEMAMOU compact meets these needs with a thoughtful and forward-looking outline of how to address issues that face first responders and their managers in times of cross-border emergency.

This international compact provides a legal framework for cooperation and mutual assistance between the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and the Canadian Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The compact requires each participating member, whether State or Province, to formulate plans and programs to facilitate international and interstate or provincial cooperation in case of natural or manmade disaster, technological hazard, or civil emergency. The compact also provides for the temporary suspension of statutes or ordinances in each jurisdiction that may impede the implementation of these plans. For example, under the compact, government officials and law enforcement authorities from one member State or Province can officially work in other jurisdictions during times of emergency, a circumstance that would not be permitted otherwise.

The compact also creates a formal mechanism for making assistance requests from one state or province to another, and encourages frequent consultation between the emergency management leaders to develop free exchange of information and resources across borders. In addition, the compact provides a Good Samaritan provision, which gives liability protection for emergency responders who act in good faith in providing assistance in a legal jurisdiction outside their own, and creates reciprocal workers compensation and other benefits to emergency responders who may get injured in responding to an emergency under the compact. Finally, the compact allows for reimbursement between members States or Provinces for losses or damages incurred in responding under the agreement.

All members of this compact have agreed to its terms and join in requesting Congress's consent for the agreement. Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have joined the IEMAMOU compact, and many of these States have passed legislation adopting the compact under State law. The Premiers of Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have similarly approved of the

compact. The IEMAMOU compact has been functioning in principle for more than 5 years, as the emergency management leaders from each member State and Province meet twice a year. Planning among the constituent members of the compact is also ongoing. This compact works well and should be supported by Congress.

The IEMAMOU compact is an international agreement between States and a foreign power, and it cannot have the full force of law without the formal approval of Congress. The U.S. Constitution requires that ``[n]o state shall . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power'' unless with the ``consent of Congress.'' U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 10, cl. 3. The joint resolution introduced today provides this necessary consent, and would give legal force to the compact. Congressional approval of this compact would also provide jurisdiction for Federal courts to resolve any disputes under the agreement.

This joint resolution is vitally important to the New England States and our Canadian Provinces to the north. Congress should support their cooperative, international leadership in creating and implementing this unique emergency management compact. The Governor of Vermont supports this joint resolution as do the leaders of the North East States Emergency Consortium, which represents each of the New England States in the compact.

This is not the first time I have supported this joint resolution. In 2001, this joint resolution was introduced by my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Robert Smith, and I joined him as a cosponsor along with Senators Lieberman, Jeffords, Chafee, and Gregg. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I moved the joint resolution through Committee where it passed by unanimous consent on October 31, 2001. With my support and that of other Senators, the joint resolution passed the Senate by unanimous consent on December 20, 2001, in the last month of the Democratic majority in the 107 Congress. Unfortunately, the House never came to consider the joint resolution, and it failed to become law. Since then, under the Republican leadership of the 108 and 109 Congresses, the joint resolution has only been introduced once and has not moved beyond referral to committee.

It is time to take action and pass this joint resolution without further delay. The IEMAMOU compact provides invaluable international cooperation and mutual assistance in times of natural disaster and extreme emergency. This compact works well for New England and the eastern Canadian provinces, and it stands as a model for emergency management planning and cooperation across this country. It is a crucial element of the security and safety planning for all communities in New England and eastern Canada, and we can wait no longer for it to become law.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to make, what I believe to be, vital and necessary changes to one of the most successful Federal-State partnership programs in the Nation today. I am speaking of the State Veterans Home Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For those of my colleagues who do not know very much about this great program, the Federal-State partnership known as the State Home Program dates back nearly 120 years. It was August 7, 1888, when a $100 check from the Federal government helped the State of Connecticut offset the financial burden of caring for aging Civil War veterans. Since that time, of course, the program has greatly matured. And it has grown into the largest institutional provider of long-term care services for our Nation's aging veterans.

Today, the grant part of the program receives an annual appropriation of about $100 million. VA uses the money to pay for two-thirds of the costs of constructing State home beds pursuant to applications submitted by the States. After a home is built, the State operates the nursing facility and maintains the property for the benefit of veterans. VA, in turn, pays a daily stipend to the State of approximately $60 for each veteran in the home. The States then support the rest of the cost of care either by collecting some money from the veterans or through direct appropriation from the State legislature.

I realize that my description of this program may have some of my colleagues scratching their heads trying to find out why I believe the program needs to change and modernize. Let me explain.

As many of you know, during the 107th Congress, I served as chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. I did a lot of work on long- term care issues and held many hearings on the topic. What I learned is that there is a big shift across the country from the traditional institutional care to a less restrictive, family oriented, home and community based approach to care.

When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I found that VA's system is strongly biased toward institutional care. We spend most of our long-term care budget on institutional beds.

I realize that nursing homes are sometimes the best place for a sick, aging person to be properly cared for. Therefore, clearly VA needs to provide that service. But, let's face it. All of us would prefer that we never end up in a nursing home. We would do everything within our power to remain in the comfort and safety of our homes and with our families.

The interesting thing about our human desire to remain in our own homes and out of nursing homes is that our human desire is also a positive financial desire. Noninstitutional long-term care services are much more cost-effective than care provided in an institutional setting. Providing people with long-term care options and the opportunity to remain in their homes for as long as possible is exactly what my legislation is about.

There is an old saying that goes ``when all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like nails.'' Essentially what that means is, we use the tools we have to solve whatever problem arises, even if a different tool might be more appropriate.

For nearly 120 years, with little exception, the only tool available through the State Veterans Home Program has been a bed: an institutional nursing home bed. So, whenever a veteran in a local community has independent living challenges, the State home program has a tool to help them: it has a bed. My Legislation would give the State homes additional tools to offer our veterans.

My bill would establish a noninstitutional care State home grant program. The premise of the new program would be the same as the current institutional program. States would submit an application to construct a building or renovate part of an existing state home to offer noninstitutional services to veterans. The State would have to provide one-third of the cost for construction and then take ownership and operational responsibility for the building and the care after the facility opens.

Similar to the payment structure today, VA would provide a daily payment for each veteran who receives services from the facility.

My legislation would also make some changes in the state home grant program that would help it transition into a more modern care delivery system.

As my colleagues may be aware, under the current program, States submit applications to VA to receive construction assistance. If the State can demonstrate that the project meets VA's requirements for quality; that its use will be primarily for veterans; and that the State has its one-third matching funds, then VA approves the project and places it on list according to a statutory priority.

My bill would create a 2-year window, starting with the date of enactment, for States to submit their new bed applications. Similarly, it would create a 2-year window for any State to come up with matching funds for any approved application that currently lacks the required match. After the 2-year window, VA would be prohibited from accepting any new applications for new bed construction.

I believe the reason we need this change is simple. For fiscal year 2007, there are $808 million in grant proposals on VA's approved list. Approximately $490 million in project proposals are in priority one status, meaning that the States have provided the required one-third matching funds.

At the rate of $100 million per year provided by Congress to fund these grants, it will take nearly 9 more years for Congress to fund all of the current projects on the list. That, of course, is assuming that no new projects will be added to it. And construction of all of those projects would probably not be completed until about 15 years from now.

All of that may sound like long-term planning for future care needs. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Nation as a whole is moving away from institutionalizing the elderly.

Our aging years are supposed to be our golden years. We conjure up images of sitting on a porch, sipping tea with our spouse of 50 plus years watching the sun set. The reality, unfortunately, is that in many cases those years are spent separated from one another as one spouse is no longer able to fully care for the other. And the only option available for assistance is institutionalization. We can do better. And this bill will move us in that direction for our veterans.

I ask all of us to consider why we have a policy at VA that encourages spending nearly $1 billion building 5,300 more new beds in a system that already has about 20,000 beds when we as a nation are trying to move in a direction that provides home and community based care programs that keep the elderly in their homes and out of long-term care institutions. I think VA and the States should change course for the betterment of our Nation's heroes.

I believe that by phasing out the current institutional bias and focusing the

energy and finances of the program on noninstitutional alternatives, VA and the States will serve more veterans and keep those veterans in their homes, where they want to be, for a much longer time.

I realize that we will still probably fund 5 or 6 thousand more new beds in the State home program just because of the 2-year window. But I recognize that Senators and Representatives will strongly support the institutional grants so long as their State has an application pending. I do not blame the Members. I would do the same thing if Idaho had submitted an application. So, I want to give everyone's State a fair chance to participate in the program.

But, I also believe that we need to transition beyond beds. And if we fail to set out the transition soon, I believe we will find ourselves 20 years from now undertaking a painful study on what to do with 15,000 empty nursing home beds in all of our States. Noninstitutional service is simply the direction of long-term care and health care today because families want to be together and home is where they want to be.

VA's partnership with the States to provide long-term care to our Nation's veterans is an unmitigated success. We must continue to support the 20,000 beds we currently have. And we will. They provide the most compassionate, cost-effective institutional care in the Nation. But, we also must modernize the program.

We must keep up with the trends in health care that are pointing us in the direction of home and community-based services and away from institutions. We must change to find a way to serve more veterans with the same amount of resources. But, most importantly, we must modernize because it is the humane and right thing to do in responding to the wishes of our constituents to stay home in their later years and grow old with the people they love.

I urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to make, what I believe to be, vital and necessary changes to one of the most successful Federal-State partnership programs in the Nation today. I am speaking of the State Veterans Home Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For those of my colleagues who do not know very much about this great program, the Federal-State partnership known as the State Home Program dates back nearly 120 years. It was August 7, 1888, when a $100 check from the Federal government helped the State of Connecticut offset the financial burden of caring for aging Civil War veterans. Since that time, of course, the program has greatly matured. And it has grown into the largest institutional provider of long-term care services for our Nation's aging veterans.

Today, the grant part of the program receives an annual appropriation of about $100 million. VA uses the money to pay for two-thirds of the costs of constructing State home beds pursuant to applications submitted by the States. After a home is built, the State operates the nursing facility and maintains the property for the benefit of veterans. VA, in turn, pays a daily stipend to the State of approximately $60 for each veteran in the home. The States then support the rest of the cost of care either by collecting some money from the veterans or through direct appropriation from the State legislature.

I realize that my description of this program may have some of my colleagues scratching their heads trying to find out why I believe the program needs to change and modernize. Let me explain.

As many of you know, during the 107th Congress, I served as chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. I did a lot of work on long- term care issues and held many hearings on the topic. What I learned is that there is a big shift across the country from the traditional institutional care to a less restrictive, family oriented, home and community based approach to care.

When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I found that VA's system is strongly biased toward institutional care. We spend most of our long-term care budget on institutional beds.

I realize that nursing homes are sometimes the best place for a sick, aging person to be properly cared for. Therefore, clearly VA needs to provide that service. But, let's face it. All of us would prefer that we never end up in a nursing home. We would do everything within our power to remain in the comfort and safety of our homes and with our families.

The interesting thing about our human desire to remain in our own homes and out of nursing homes is that our human desire is also a positive financial desire. Noninstitutional long-term care services are much more cost-effective than care provided in an institutional setting. Providing people with long-term care options and the opportunity to remain in their homes for as long as possible is exactly what my legislation is about.

There is an old saying that goes ``when all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like nails.'' Essentially what that means is, we use the tools we have to solve whatever problem arises, even if a different tool might be more appropriate.

For nearly 120 years, with little exception, the only tool available through the State Veterans Home Program has been a bed: an institutional nursing home bed. So, whenever a veteran in a local community has independent living challenges, the State home program has a tool to help them: it has a bed. My Legislation would give the State homes additional tools to offer our veterans.

My bill would establish a noninstitutional care State home grant program. The premise of the new program would be the same as the current institutional program. States would submit an application to construct a building or renovate part of an existing state home to offer noninstitutional services to veterans. The State would have to provide one-third of the cost for construction and then take ownership and operational responsibility for the building and the care after the facility opens.

Similar to the payment structure today, VA would provide a daily payment for each veteran who receives services from the facility.

My legislation would also make some changes in the state home grant program that would help it transition into a more modern care delivery system.

As my colleagues may be aware, under the current program, States submit applications to VA to receive construction assistance. If the State can demonstrate that the project meets VA's requirements for quality; that its use will be primarily for veterans; and that the State has its one-third matching funds, then VA approves the project and places it on list according to a statutory priority.

My bill would create a 2-year window, starting with the date of enactment, for States to submit their new bed applications. Similarly, it would create a 2-year window for any State to come up with matching funds for any approved application that currently lacks the required match. After the 2-year window, VA would be prohibited from accepting any new applications for new bed construction.

I believe the reason we need this change is simple. For fiscal year 2007, there are $808 million in grant proposals on VA's approved list. Approximately $490 million in project proposals are in priority one status, meaning that the States have provided the required one-third matching funds.

At the rate of $100 million per year provided by Congress to fund these grants, it will take nearly 9 more years for Congress to fund all of the current projects on the list. That, of course, is assuming that no new projects will be added to it. And construction of all of those projects would probably not be completed until about 15 years from now.

All of that may sound like long-term planning for future care needs. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Nation as a whole is moving away from institutionalizing the elderly.

Our aging years are supposed to be our golden years. We conjure up images of sitting on a porch, sipping tea with our spouse of 50 plus years watching the sun set. The reality, unfortunately, is that in many cases those years are spent separated from one another as one spouse is no longer able to fully care for the other. And the only option available for assistance is institutionalization. We can do better. And this bill will move us in that direction for our veterans.

I ask all of us to consider why we have a policy at VA that encourages spending nearly $1 billion building 5,300 more new beds in a system that already has about 20,000 beds when we as a nation are trying to move in a direction that provides home and community based care programs that keep the elderly in their homes and out of long-term care institutions. I think VA and the States should change course for the betterment of our Nation's heroes.

I believe that by phasing out the current institutional bias and focusing the

energy and finances of the program on noninstitutional alternatives, VA and the States will serve more veterans and keep those veterans in their homes, where they want to be, for a much longer time.

I realize that we will still probably fund 5 or 6 thousand more new beds in the State home program just because of the 2-year window. But I recognize that Senators and Representatives will strongly support the institutional grants so long as their State has an application pending. I do not blame the Members. I would do the same thing if Idaho had submitted an application. So, I want to give everyone's State a fair chance to participate in the program.

But, I also believe that we need to transition beyond beds. And if we fail to set out the transition soon, I believe we will find ourselves 20 years from now undertaking a painful study on what to do with 15,000 empty nursing home beds in all of our States. Noninstitutional service is simply the direction of long-term care and health care today because families want to be together and home is where they want to be.

VA's partnership with the States to provide long-term care to our Nation's veterans is an unmitigated success. We must continue to support the 20,000 beds we currently have. And we will. They provide the most compassionate, cost-effective institutional care in the Nation. But, we also must modernize the program.

We must keep up with the trends in health care that are pointing us in the direction of home and community-based services and away from institutions. We must change to find a way to serve more veterans with the same amount of resources. But, most importantly, we must modernize because it is the humane and right thing to do in responding to the wishes of our constituents to stay home in their later years and grow old with the people they love.

I urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Unfair Foreign Competition Act of 2007, legislation providing a private right of action for domestic manufacturers injured by the illegal subsidization and dumping of foreign products into U.S. markets. These unfair, and illegal, trade practices steal jobs from our workers, profits from our companies, and economic growth from our economy.

Dumping occurs when a foreign producer sells a product in the United States at a price that is below that producer's sales price in its home market, or at a price that is lower than its cost of production. Subsidizing occurs when a foreign government provides financial assistance to benefit the production, manufacture, or exportation of a good. Under current law, the International Trade Commission, ITC, and the Department of Commerce conduct antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and 5-year reviews under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. U.S. industries may petition the ITC and Commerce for relief from dumped and subsidized imports. If Commerce finds that an imported product is dumped or subsidized and the ITC finds that the petitioning U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, an antidumping duty order or countervailing duty order will be imposed to offset the dumping or subsidies.

However, since current administrative remedies are not consistently and effectively enforced, I am introducing private right of action legislation to enforce the law. My legislation allows petitioners to choose between the ITC and their local U.S. district court for the injury determination phase of their investigation. Doing so gives our injured domestic producers the opportunity to display their vigor as private plaintiffs in seeking enforcement of our trade laws. If injury is found, U.S. Customs and Border Protection would then assess duties on future importation of the article in question. The legal standard for determining dumping margins which is established by the Commerce Department would remain unchanged.

I believe that introduction of this legislation will have an important deterrent effect on the practices of China and our other trading partners. Aggressive policy measures such as this legislation are necessary to prevent China, in particular, from causing a major crisis in the near future for our domestic steel industry. China has a well-documented history of engaging in unfair trade practices, as evidenced by the 61 antidumping orders in place with respect to various products as of October 23, 2006. The statistics on China's steel output are staggering. In 2005, China made more steel than the next four largest producers combined and data show that China continues to become more export-oriented. Through the first 10 months of 2006, China's steel tonnage exports to the U.S. market more than doubled over 2005. In total, Chinese steel output grew 26 percent or more than 71 million metric tons in 2005. The explosive growth of Chinese steel over the past decade would not have been possible without the support of the Chinese Government.

This legislation is similar to legislation which I have introduced as far back as 1982 where I originally sought injunctive relief. Since its last introduction in the 106th Congress, several relevant statutes have been challenged at the World Trade Organization, WTO, prompting further modification to its current form. In each case, the United States has taken action to comply and avoid retaliatory actions by protesting WTO member countries. The United States took action in December 2004 to comply with WTO rulings on the Antidumping Act of 1916, which provided a private cause of action and criminal penalties for dumping, by prospectively repealing the act. Also, the United States took action in February 2006 to comply with WTO rulings on the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, CDSOA, which required the distribution of collected antidumping and countervailing duties to petitioners and interested parties in the underlying trade proceedings. In both cases, the WTO panel found that U.S. law allowed an impermissible specific action against dumping and subsidization. The legislation I introduce today adapts to these changes in law and allows for a determination of injury in accordance with our international obligations.

We have too long sacrificed American industry and American jobs because the executive branch, whether it is a Democratic administration or a Republican administration, has made concessions for foreign policy and defense interests. For many years, foreign policy and defense policy have superseded basic fairness on trade policy. I received a comprehensive education on this subject back in 1984 when there was a favorable ruling by the ITC for the American steel industry, but it was subject to review by the President. At that time my colleague Senator Heinz and I visited every one of the Cabinet officers in an effort to get support to see to it that the International Trade Commission ruling in favor of the American steel industry was upheld. Then-Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige was favorable, and International Trade Representative Bill Brock was favorable. We received a favorable hearing in all quarters until we spoke with then-Secretary of State Shultz and then-Secretary of Defense Weinberger who were absolutely opposed to the ITC ruling. President Reagan decided to overrule the ITC, and U.S. trade policy and workers again took second place to foreign policy concerns.

I was reminded of this reality again in 2005 when I testified on behalf of the domestic pipe and tube industry in a section 421 safeguard case against China. This safeguard provision was inserted as a protective measure when unique and permanent trade status was granted to China, a measure which I opposed. It seemed to me that based upon the record that China had, that normal relations could not exist because they have a record of not observing the law. With these concerns in mind, Congress inserted the section 421 safeguard provision. The ITC agreed with the overwhelming evidence supporting the claim that a surge of imports from China were creating a market disruption. However, President Bush decided not to uphold the ITC's ruling. Since that time, jobs in my state have been lost. The Section 421 provision was included to provide protection for our domestic manufacturing base. Yet, none of the five petitions previously filed had been granted either. It is difficult to understand how safeguards for situations where China's conduct is excessive and unfair could be ignored, especially after giving special consideration by way of trade.

While it is my hope that the administration, whether Democrat or Republican, would take a more objective look at trade remedies for our injured domestic manufacturers, I introduce this legislation today to provide a valuable tool for domestic industry. Strict enforcement of our trade laws is critical to ensuring that our domestic manufacturers have a fair shot at competing with foreign steel. In the current environment, I believe that it is necessary

for an injured industry to have an opportunity to go into Federal court and seek reliable enforcement of America's trade laws, which are currently not being enforced adequately.

I ask my colleagues to join me now in supporting this legislation. I believe in free trade. But the essence of free trade is selling goods at a price equal to the cost of production and a reasonable profit. Where you have dumping or subsidization, it is the antithesis of free trade. The significant advances made by our manufacturers are insufficient to compete in the face of illegal trade practices such as dumping and subsidies. Our steel industry is made up of some of the most innovative, skilled, and efficient producers in the world. Our industry can compete if the playing field is level, but if foreign exporters are not held accountable, and can freely undercut American producers with dumped goods and government subsidies, the future of our steel industry will be at risk.

Mr. President, last year, as we approached the beginning of National Police Week 2006, our Nation was saddened by the tragic loss of two Fairfax County, VA, police officers, Detective Vicki Armel and Master Police Officer Michael Gambarino, in an ambush at the Sully District Police Station. Once again, as National Police Week 2007 drew to a close, the Nation found itself in mourning at the loss of an officer who was ambushed over the weekend. I am referring to Moscow, ID, Police Officer Lee Newbill, a husband and a father of three who was fatally shot on Saturday night. We do not remember our fallen law enforcement officers for the way they gave their lives but for the way they lived them. The people of the State of Alaska extend our condolences to Officer Newbill's wife and three children. We are also thinking about Brannon Jordan, a Latah County sheriff s deputy who was shot in the incident, but who is expected to recover, according to media reports.

I would like to take this opportunity once again to speak about the life and accomplishments of the late Thomas P. O'Hara, a National Park Service protection ranger and pilot who gave his life in the line of duty, an Alaskan hero.

Thomas P. O'Hara was assigned to the Katmai National Park and Preserve in the Bristol Bay region of western Alaska. On December 19, 2002, Ranger O'Hara and his passenger, a Fish and Wildlife Service employee, were on a mission in the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge. Their plane went down on the tundra.

When the plane was reported overdue, a rescue effort consisting of 14 single-engine aircraft, an Alaska Air National Guard plane, and a Coast Guard helicopter quickly mobilized. Many of the single-engine aircraft were piloted by Torn's friends. The wreckage was located late in the afternoon of December 20. The passenger survived the crash, but Ranger Torn did not.

Tom O'Hara was an experienced pilot with 11,000 hours as a pilot-in- command. He was active in the communities of Naknek and King Salmon where he grew up, flying children to Bible camp and coaching young wrestlers. Tom provided a strong link between the residents of Bristol Bay and the National Park Service.

Although Tom O'Hara was a most valued employee of the National Park Service, he did not enjoy the same status as National Park Service employees with competitive career status. Tom was hired under a special hiring authority established under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, which permits land management agencies like the National Park Service to hire, on a noncompetitive basis, Alaskans who by reason of having lived or worked in or near public lands in Alaska, have special knowledge or expertise concerning the natural or cultural resources of public lands and the management thereof.

Tom O'Hara possessed this knowledge and offered it freely to the National Park Service. But because he was hired under this special authority, his opportunities for transfer and promotion within the Park Service were limited, even though his service was exemplary.

As a lasting memorial to Tom O'Hara's exemplary career, I am introducing legislation today that will grant competitive status to ANILCA local hire employees who hold permanent appointments with the Federal land management agencies after the completion of 2 years of satisfactory service. In Tom's honor, the short title of this legislation is the Thomas P. O'Hara Public Land Career Opportunity Act of 2007.

It is my sincere hope that the enactment of this legislation will encourage other Alaskans, particularly Alaska Natives, to follow in Tom O'Hara's footsteps and seek lifelong careers with the Federal land management agencies.

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