A bill to provide for the treatment of service as a member of the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II as active service for purposes of retired pay for members of the Armed Forces.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 7 minutes.

Madam President, I rise today to seek the continued support of my colleagues for recognition of a group of patriotic heroes who defended our Nation and Alaska from our enemies in World War II.

In 1935, famed Army GEN Billy Mitchell told Congress:

I believe that in the future, whoever holds Alaska will

hold the world. I think it is the most important strategic

place in the world.

General Mitchell was right. Less than a decade later, Alaska became the first American soil occupied by a foreign enemy since the Revolutionary War. To counter Japanese aggression against the territory of Alaska during World War II, a group of Alaskan Natives voluntarily formed the Alaska Territorial Guard. These brave men engaged in direct combat, as described by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, with the enemy in protecting all of Alaska. They shot down Japanese air balloons, conducted scouting patrols, carried out rescue missions of downed airmen, and built military airstrips and rescue shelters.

They played a key role in logistics support for the U.S. military stationed in Alaska by delivering food, ammunition, and other equipment to the forces. Their actions were vital to successful U.S. military efforts, preventing our enemies from securing a strategic location during the war.

As you can see by these photos surrounding me, the Alaska Territorial Guard was a unique group. They were mostly subsistence hunters and fishermen--the main breadwinners in their families--living in some of the most remote villages in the entire country. Receiving no pay or recognition for their service, the territorial guard mission was driven by a single value: patriotism.

Many of these members continued their service for years in the U.S. military after the Alaska Territorial Guard was disbanded in 1947. Unfortunately, the contributions of the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II went unrecognized for half a century. In 2000, Congress finally acknowledged our Nation's debt to these brave men by qualifying their time spent in the Alaska Territorial Guard as Federal service.

Congress also directed the Secretary of the Army to issue discharge certificates to all those who served in the territorial guard. These discharge certificates entitled ATG members to veterans' benefits and was interpreted by the Department of Defense to count as service in the Alaska Territorial Guard toward retirement credit. Twenty-six former members of the Alaska Territorial Guard finally began receiving a well- earned pension from the government. At long last, the sacrifice and the contributions of Alaskan Natives during World War II were recognized.

Then in January of this year, abruptly and without warning, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service stopped issuing pensions to these 26 guardsmen. This was based on the finding that their service was not Federal and, therefore, the payments were not legal. Thankfully, former Army Secretary Pete Geren issued temporary payments to ease the economic hardship experienced by these heroes while we worked on a more permanent solution.

To its credit, the Alaska legislature stepped up where the Federal government fell short. The State is paying their pensions until Congress can provide a permanent legislative solution or until February 2010, whichever comes first. I cannot imagine another situation where Congress would stand by and let veterans' entitlements be revoked and their sacrifices go unrecognized.

Luckily, my Senate colleagues also recognized this injustice. I thank my colleague, Senator Murkowski, who introduced S. 342, a bill to provide for the treatment of service as a member of the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II as active service for purposes of retired pay to restore pensions. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation.

Working together with the leader of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and the ranking member, Senator McCain, we were able to secure similar legislation to restore those pensions in an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for the year 2010, supported unanimously by the Senate. Most recently, the Senate Appropriations Committee included the same provision in the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010.

However, I was extremely disappointed to learn in the statement of administration policy for fiscal year 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that the national administration has voiced objection to the provision that would count Alaska Territorial Guard service as active-duty time for retirement purposes. I remind my colleagues that the Alaska Territorial Guard members were not State employees. They were patriotic Alaska Natives answering the call of duty from their country.

Allowing their service in the Alaska Territorial Guard to count as Federal service cannot set a precedent because there is no other group like them in this country. They served the United States in a time of war by defending an American territory from the enemy. They engaged in combat. And they did this because they felt the same sense of patriotism during World War II that every active member of the Army and Air Force and every other military branch did.

These brave Alaskans are now in their 70s and 80s. Just this past Monday, one of them--Nicholai E. Nicholai

of Kwethluk--passed away before he could see this issue resolved. I ask my colleagues for their continued support to ensure that the now 25 Alaskan Natives who defended this Nation receive their earned pension by supporting the provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act and Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010.

I also join my colleague Senator Murkowski in asking the administration to reexamine their objection to restoring the retirement payments and honoring our World War II veterans. Our time is running short to correct this injustice and restore these modest payments. The Federal Government turned its back on these men at the end of the war. I hope Congress and my colleagues in the Senate won't let that happen.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Madam President, on January 22 of this year, I came to the floor to inform our colleagues in the Senate about a decision by the Department of Defense that service in the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II would not be regarded as Active-Duty service for purposes of military retirement. That decision reversed the position that had previously been taken by the Army that this service did count toward military retirement.

As a consequence, 26 elderly Alaskans, descendants of the aboriginal people who originally inhabited Alaska, 26 Native people, predominantly Eskimo, were about to see a substantial reduction in their military pensions, this all happening in the dead of an Alaska winter when we were paying extraordinarily high fuel prices.

At that time when I came to the floor, I wondered out loud what kind of government, what kind of ``Cruella'' would cut the pensions of 26 elderly people who stood up to defend Alaska and our Nation during World War II with absolutely no prior warning, no advanced notice? The answer was our government, on advice of the lawyers.

In the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001, Congress recognized service in the Alaska Territorial Guard as Active-Duty service. Section 8147 required the Secretary of Defense to issue discharge certificates to each member of the Alaska Territorial Guard under honorable conditions if the Secretary determined the nature and duration of the service of the individual so warrants. The military first concluded that included retirement benefits and then abruptly reversed that position with immediate effect.

As Lieutenant Colonel McNorton explained in a story carried by the Associated Press, section 8147 applies to military benefits, including health benefits, but it does not make members of the Territorial Guard eligible for retirement pay.

I must emphasize, at this point, that no Alaska Territorial guardsman claimed a military pension solely because of his service in the Territorial Guard. The Alaska Territorial Guard was created in 1942 and disbanded in 1947. Many members of the ``Tundra Army,'' as some called it, continued to serve in the Alaska National Guard and other units of the military. That service, combined with service in the Territorial Guard, forms the basis for the claim.

I have come to learn that when you use the term ``Cruella'' on the Senate floor, people sit up and take notice. My remarks were telegraphed across the blogosphere and national media outlets. The response that came from across the country to the plight of the 26 elderly Alaskans was truly heartwarming. Across the ideological spectrum, the response from the American people was outrage over this situation. The high level of national interest in the plight of these Alaska Territorial Guard members was not lost on the senior leaders of the Army. The Secretary of the Army rose to the occasion. He reached into his emergency and extraordinary expense fund--the triple E fund-- to continue the payments to those elders for 60 days, in the hope that Congress would have an opportunity to address the issue by then.

My colleague, Senator Begich, and I promptly introduced legislation to correct that situation, but the legislation was not considered before the 60 days of temporary payments ran out. The Alaska Legislature stepped up to fill the gap, and they enacted legislation to continue the payments from State funds until February of 2010 in order to, again, give Congress the time to fix the problem.

With the support of our colleagues--and I especially appreciate the leadership and support from Senator Levin, my colleague and friend Senator Inouye, and Senator Cochran--language to clarify that service in the Alaska Territorial Guard counts toward eligibility for retirement pay that was included in that 2010 Defense authorization bill----

Madam President, it was my understanding that I was to have 15 minutes under this time agreement; is that correct?

Madam President, I do have additional comments I wish to make. I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 minutes to conclude these remarks, if that is acceptable.

Madam President, I also wish to recognize my friend and colleague, Senator McCain, who was there at the end to help us with this issue.

The people of Alaska thank our colleagues, Senator Inouye, Senator McCain, and so many others for the consideration that was given these Alaska Territorial guardsmen. Last Friday, we were disappointed to learn that some in the administration might not share our enthusiasm for putting this matter to bed and restoring the retirement benefits for the 26 elderly Alaska Native veterans.

The statement of administration position on the Defense

Mr. President, today I introduce the Foot and Mouth Disease Prevention Act of 2009 with my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Mike Enzi, and with broad organizational support. I drafted this bill with one goal in mind: to keep America Foot and Mouth Disease, FMD, free.

The United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, under the Bush administration proposed throwing open our borders to Argentine livestock, fresh meat and fresh product. While the United States of America has been free of FMD without vaccination since 1929, Argentina has consistently struggled with the disease, experiencing outbreaks as recently as 2006. Argentina has failed to remain FMD free for any length of time and arguably lacks the infrastructure necessary for this proposal to fly. In fact, a 2001 outbreak in Argentina went unreported and was hidden by the Argentine government, raising serious questions regarding their communication on this front.

The Foot and Mouth Disease Prevention Act of 2009 doesn't interrupt the status quo. Argentina can import product that is dried or cooked, for example, that doesn't pose a risk for disease transmission. And we're not saying that increased trade is permanently prohibited. We are simply asking for Argentina to comply with certain acceptable standards for trade that would ensure the country as a whole is FMD free, and FMD free without vaccination. Additionally, our requirement that the Secretary of Agriculture ``certifies to Congress'' that Argentina as a country is free of FMD is merely a reporting process regarding Argentina's disease status.

Senator Enzi and I consulted extensively with nationally recognized livestock health experts on USDA's proposal. These livestock health experts resoundingly voiced their concern for USDA's plan, which fails to put American farmers and ranchers first. Dr. Sam Holland, South Dakota State Veterinarian and Past President of the National Assembly of State Animal Health Officials, NASAHO, has been instrumental with offering his guidance and expertise. A poll was taken within NASAHO and the majority of state veterinarians oppose regionalizing for FMD. While regionalization may be an appropriate approach in various other circumstances, it is unequivocally unacceptable in responding to Foot and Mouth Disease. An FMD outbreak in the United States is projected to cost our agricultural economy billions of dollars, and it is with good reason that the American Veterinary Medical Association, AVMA, has deemed FMD to be the most devastating of all livestock diseases.

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, APHIS, arguably violated its own World Organization for Animal Health-complaint regionalization plan in proposing increased meat trade with Argentina. APHIS must address eleven points when initiating the regionalization process, including points six and seven which speak to the degree of separation of the region and the extent to which movement can be determined and controlled. Nationally recognized livestock health experts believe that in the case of regionalizing for FMD, sound scientific evidence argues against USDA's proposal.

This past fall, USDA APHIS Chief Veterinarian Dr. Clifford discussed with my staff his intention not to proceed with the Argentina plan until a review of the 2005 risk assessment was completed. It is my understanding that a team will be sent to Argentina to conduct this review in late February. Additionally, the new Administration is reviewing proposed rules, of which the Argentina plan is included. While both of these developments are encouraging, it is essential that we continue to communicate the potentially disastrous consequences of this plan.

Organizations across the agricultural industry support this legislation, including the American Sheep Industry Association, United States Cattlemen's Association, R-CALF, National Farmers Union, South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, South Dakota Cattlemen's Association, Wyoming Stock Growers Association, South Dakota Farmers Union, Women Involved in Farm Economics, and Dakota Rural Action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Lytton Gaming Oversight Act, a bill that will ensure federal law is followed when a Native American tribe seeks to operate any new gaming facilities.

This legislation is simple, straightforward, and fair. It would amend language inserted in the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of 2000 that required the Secretary of the Interior to take a card club and adjacent parking lot in the San Francisco Bay Area into trust for the Lytton tribe as their reservation. That legislation also required that the acquisition be backdated to October 17, 1988, before the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA.

The ``two-part'' determination process in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is a critical component to tribal land acquisition for gaming purposes and should not be circumvented. Specifically, it requires the Governor's consent and the Secretary of the Interior to consult with nearby tribes and the local community and its representatives.

The legislation that I am introducing would require the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians to follow these same critical oversight guidelines laid out in Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act before engaging in Class III, or Nevada-style, gaming on land acquired after the passage of IGRA in 1988.

The bill allows the tribe to continue operating a Class II facility at the current site provided the tribe follows IGRA regulations for gaming on newly-acquired lands in the future. The bill also precludes any expansion of the tribe's current Class II facility.

The bill would not modify or eliminate the tribe's federal recognition status, alter the trust status of the new reservation, or take away the tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the standard process prescribed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The bill serves only to restore the jurisdiction of IGRA over the gaming process, as originally intended by Congress.

Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides an established and clear process for gaming on newly-

acquired lands taken into trust after the enactment of IGRA in 1988. The ``two-part determination'' process allows for federal and state approval, and for input from nearby tribes and local communities.

Circumventing this process can have negative and severe impacts on local citizens and deprive local and tribal governments of their ability to represent their communities on an incredibly important and contentious issue.

If this bill is not approved, the Lytton tribe could take the former card club that serves as their reservation and turn it into a large gaming complex operating outside the regulations set up by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. In fact, this is exactly what was proposed in the summer of 2004.

I am pleased that the tribe has abandoned a plan seeking a sizable Class III casino, but without this legislation the tribe could reverse these plans at any time. Allowing this to happen would set a dangerous precedent in California and any state where tribal gaming is permitted.

Instead, Congress should reaffirm its intent that all new gaming facilities should be subject to IGRA without preference or prejudice.

Last Thursday evening I came to the floor to speak to a decision by the United States Army, I understand at the urging of the Department of Defense, to reverse its position on whether service in the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II is creditable toward military retirement. I have asked repeatedly for a copy of the legal opinion supporting this decision. I am still waiting.

One of the most troubling aspects of the decision was that it was to come into effect on February 1, 2009, in the dead of Alaska winter, and without any advance warning to those affected. The decision reduces the retirement pay received by 25 or 26 former members of the Territorial Guard by as much as $557 a month for one individual. The reduction in retirement pay to several others exceeds $500 a month. That is a substantial loss of income at any time of the year but it is especially difficult during the winter.

This afternoon, Pete Geren, the Secretary of the Army, announced that the Army would make a onetime gratuitous payment from funds appropriated to cover emergency and extraordinary expenses to these individuals, representing 2 months of the difference between what each would receive if service in the Alaska Territorial Guard were included in the retirement pay calculation and what each will receive as a retirement check beginning on February 1, 2009. I deeply appreciate Secretary Geren's compassionate decision. Increases in the cost of food and heat are making it very difficult for our Native people in rural Alaska to make ends meet this winter. I understand that the vast majority, if not the entire list of people who will receive this additional payment live in the villages of rural Alaska.

However, I remain disappointed that the Army cannot continue its policy of paying retirement benefits on account of Alaska Territorial Guard service. Today I join with my colleagues in introducing legislation that clarifies that service in the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II is creditable toward military retirement.

Since I raised this issue on the floor last Thursday evening the response I have received from around the country has been nothing but overwhelming. I deeply appreciate all of those who have called and written to express their support for our efforts to protect the benefits that the members of our Alaska Territorial Guard earned through their legendary service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and supporting material be printed in the Record.