Floor Statements

Yes, I would be pleased to work with you and Chairman Stevens on ensuring that the items you have agreed upon are enacted.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, before proceeding I would like to thank my leader, the Senator from Nevada, for his very generous remarks. I appreciate that very much.

I rise today in support of S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act and to address the outrageous mischaracterizations that some of my colleagues made yesterday about this measure. The law does not support their attempts to discriminate against Native Hawaiians so my colleagues had to resort to trying to confuse the issue.

This measure does not result in race discrimination. But discrimination will occur if this measure is not passed. It is undisputed that Native Hawaiians are the aboriginal, indigenous people of Hawaii. Yet some of my colleagues want to discriminate against them and treat them differently from other Native Americans--the American Indian and the Alaska Native. They seek to impose a new requirement for Congressional legislation to authorize the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government even though many of these opponents have been in Congress for years and did not impose this requirement on the other aboriginal indigenous people recognized by Congress since 1978. Do not participate in these discriminatory activities.

Congress has plenary authority over the aboriginal, indigenous people of America. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this. The Supreme Court has also acknowledged Congress' authority to recognize as an Indian tribe the aboriginal, indigenous people of America regardless of whether they are Indians, regardless of whether they are organized as a tribe, and regardless of whether they are located in territory of the United States. My colleagues who spoke against this measure yesterday know this. But none of them attempted to address these issues.

Rather, they are trying to distract us and the American people by claiming that this bill will strip Native Hawaiians of their American citizenship. My colleagues know better than this. They know that Indian tribes, however they are formed, are recognized as sovereign governments in the United States. They know that since the early 1800s the Supreme Court has called the Native governments of this land-- domestic, dependent nations. They know that the status and existence of Native governments is recognized within our form of government. But they are relying on the fact that many of our citizens are not familiar with Native American governments so that they incite fear of racial preference, denial of rights, and secession.

Although the United States of America does not recognize dual citizenship for those who come from other countries, the United States does recognize that Native Americans can be both citizens of the United States and members of their Native government. This is true even for those Native Americans located in the lower 48, whose

tribal governments were terminated in the 1950s, or whose tribal governments were restored or recognized over the last 30 or so years. This bill will lead to a similar situation for the Native Hawaiians. It is not inconsistent with what already exists in the United States.

Native Hawaiians do live as separate and distinct communities. In 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside approximately 203,500 acres of land for homesteading and agricultural use by Native Hawaiians. The Act was intended to ``rehabilitate'' the Native Hawaiian race, which was estimated to have dropped from between 400,000 and 1 million, to 38,000. At the time, prevailing Federal Indian policy was premised upon the objective of breaking up Indian reservations and allotting lands to individual Indians. Most of the homestead communities belong to an organization called the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations. The Council is composed of 24 separate Native Hawaiian Homestead Associations. These associations are distinct and separate communities of Native Hawaiians.

Aside from living on Hawaiian homelands, there are communities that are distinctly Native Hawaiian. Through Native Hawaiian social and political institutions such as the Royal Hawaiian societies which existed during the Kingdom of Hawaii as well as the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, Kamehameha Schools, and Queen Liliuokalani Children's Center, the Native Hawaiian community has maintained its distinct character as an aboriginal, native people.

Native Hawaiian culture, tradition, custom, and language has experienced a renaissance in the past 30 years. Many Native Hawaiians speak the Hawaiian language and practice the cultural practices of our kupuna, our ancestors, in health care and in education.

In another attempt to incite fear of this bill, some of my colleagues stated that this measure would lead to Hawaii seceding from the United States. Yes, a small percentage of my constituents advocate for Independence from the United States. It is an extreme view that I do not share, that the majority of Hawaii's citizens do not share, and that will not happen.

In 1959, Hawaii was admitted to become a part of the United States because the voters in the territory of Hawaii overwhelmingly voted to do so. This does not, however, erase the wrongs that were committed against this unique group of indigenous aboriginal native people. This bill does not affect Hawaii's statehood or the rights of it citizens under such statehood. This measure does, however, provide an opportunity to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government, similar to that of Alaska Native and American Indians, who are also American citizens, and it provides an opportunity to finally resolve longstanding issues that exist in Hawaii as a result of the illegal overthrow.

The United States, in enacting Public Law 103-150, the Apology Resolution, has already recognized the fact that Native Hawaiians have never given up their inherent sovereignty. Despite the fact that Hawaii was admitted as the 50th State of the Union, Native Hawaiians neither by the government or through a plebiscite or referendum gave up their rights to inherent sovereignty. The June 27, 1959, statehood plebiscite in Hawaii only asked ``Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted to the Union as a State?'' Although the statehood plebiscite did not provide other options for independence or free association, it did not dissolve an inherent right to sovereignty by the indigenous people of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians.

Native Hawaiians are Americans and will continue to be American citizens upon enactment of this measure. Like other Native Americans, Native Hawaiians have honorably and overwhelmingly served in the United States military. Like their Native American brethren, they have served in numerous wars, including, World War II, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq and remain truly essential to protecting our country. Native Hawaiians will continue to do so after enactment of this measure. Native Hawaiians are truly proud to be Americans and should be.

Yesterday, some implied that this measure would abridge the right to vote and there was an attempt to somehow link the Supreme Court's decision in Rice v. Cayetano to this matter. This holding of this case has no bearing on the measure before us and this bill does not reverse the Court's holding. In order to fully understand what this decision did and did not say, one needs to know the facts:

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is established pursuant to the Hawaii State Constitution as a State agency to administer programs for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. Prior to the Rice decision, the State limited voting for the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, to Native Hawaiians. Mr. Rice, a non-Native Hawaiian citizen of the State of Hawaii, sued the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a State agency, because he was not eligible to vote in the elections for the Board of Trustees that administers programs for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. Because the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is an arm of the State, the Supreme Court held that the State of Hawaii's denial of the right to vote in elections for the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs violated the Fifteenth Amendment guarantee of the right to vote.

That is what the Rice v. Cayetano decision held. Nothing more, nothing less.

But it appears that many of my colleagues have not read Rice. So I will take the liberty to cite from the decision so that my colleagues can fully understand that this case has no bearing on the matter before us today. Because with respect to whether or not Congress may treat Native Hawaiians as it does Indian tribes, the Court left open the possibility that Congress could treat Native Hawaiians as such. At 528 U.S. 518, the Court accurately noted that it had not yet considered whether ``Congress . . . has determined that native Hawaiians have a status like that of organized Indian tribes. . . .'' but the Court continued by specifically stating on page 519, ``We can stay far off that difficult terrain.'' The Court found it unnecessary to address whether Congress has treated Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe because it found that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is a State agency.

Although the holding of Rice is not relevant to the matter before us, the author of the State's brief is interesting, for the author is none other than recently confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts. Now Chief Justice Roberts clearly laid out the arguments as to how and why Native Hawaiians are a separate and distinct aboriginal, indigenous people who fall within Congress's plenary authority over Indian tribes. For instance, Chief Justice Roberts stated:

Congress's broad authority over Indian affairs reaches the

shores of Hawaii, too.

The Constitution gives Congress--not the courts--authority

to acknowledge and extinguish claims based on aboriginal

status.

Congress has established with Hawaiians the same type of

`unique legal relationship' that exists with respect to the

Indian tribes who enjoy the `same rights and privileges'

accorded Hawaiians. . . .

I urge all of my colleagues to read the excellent brief drafted by now Chief Justice Roberts.

Congress has repeatedly enacted laws that limit the right to vote in Native governmental elections to the members of that native government and it is consistent with the Constitution. In the 1930's, Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act and limited voting to tribal members. In the 1970's, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and limited voting to Native shareholders and their descendants. Since 1978, Congress has enacted over 20 laws that authorized the reorganization or recognition of Indian tribes and many of those laws expressly limit voting to the members of those tribes. To listen to the opponents of this measure, the bill will create a racial preference for voting in a native government and that this has never been done before. But as I just pointed out, this bill is not forging new ground. This bill is consistent with Congress's past actions and the Supreme Court has never questioned these actions.

Another matter that my colleagues try to confuse others on is the difference between reorganizing or recognizing a native government and creating a native government. No one, not even the opponents of the measure, dispute that Native Hawaiians exercised sovereignty over the lands that now

comprise Hawaii before European contact. No one disputes that there was a Native Hawaiian Kingdom. Consequently, there was a Native Hawaiian government that the United States recognized as a sovereign. Indeed, the United States even engaged in government-to-government relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is this government which will be reorganized as a domestic, dependent nation within our constitutional framework, in a manner consistent with the status of other Native Americans.

To hear the comments made yesterday, one would think that there was never a Native Hawaiian government. One of my colleagues recently attended a forum on this measure and mentioned his concern over the lack of civic education in America and the corresponding lack of knowledge about America's history. I agree with him. I urge all my colleagues to learn more about the history of Hawaii, the history of Native Hawaiians, the history of the United States, the laws enacted by Congress for the benefit of the aboriginal, indigenous people of the United States, and the laws handed down by the Supreme Court.

I am confident that once my colleagues become more informed about these matters, all will realize that enacting legislation authorizing the reorganization of a native government is within Congress authority. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this authority as recently as 2 years ago in United States v. Lara. In fact, the Court acknowledged that ``Congress has restored previously extinguished tribal status--by re- recognizing a Tribe whose tribal existence it previously had terminated.''

Once everyone obtains more education about the history and laws influencing this measure, they will realize that various history impacts the history of the United States, you will realize the difference between authorizing the reorganization of a native government and creating one out of thin air.

Claims that this bill will establish a precedent for the recognition of tribal status for Amish or Hassidic Jews or other groups are ridiculous. It is just another attempt to scare the citizens of America. Congress has the authority to recognize government-to- government relations with the aboriginal, indigenous people because of their preexisting sovereignty over the lands because of European contact. None of these other groups are preexisting sovereigns who exercised such authority.

Nor will this result in a government for the Hispanics who lived in Texas before it became a republic in 1836, or for descendants of the French citizens before the Louisiana Purchase. Again, these citizens are not aboriginal, indigenous people who exercised sovereignty before Western contact. While Congress has used its plenary authority to recognize the aboriginal, indigenous people who reside in these former territories, Congress has never attempted to recognize the non- aboriginal, non-indigenous people as a government nor will it. We are not creating a precedent here.

Finally, I want to address the letter from the Department of Justice that was sent to Majority Leader Frist last night. Last year, the Justice Department sent a longer letter outlining substantive policy concerns. Senator Akaka and I, along with Governor Lingle, engaged in extensive negotiations with administration officials to address these substantive policy concerns. The result of these negotiations are contained in the substitute amendment that Senator Akaka will he offering. There was no attempt to address the ideological concerns laid out in that letter. Therefore, Senator Akaka and I have always known that all of the Department of Justice's concerns will not be addressed in the substitute amendment.

Before anyone relies too much on the Justice Department's letter, let me point out that the letter cites to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. I urge everyone to read the Government Accountability Office report released last week that noted the Commission's recent activities are not objective nor are there procedures in place to guarantee that they are.

While the letter correctly notes that the Supreme Court believes there is considerable dispute, it fails to acknowledge that the Supreme Court could have addressed the issue in Rice v. Cayetano but instead chose to put the issue aside for another day. The letter also does not mention the extensive Supreme Court case law that recognizes that it is Congress who has the authority to recognize a government-to-government relationship with a native government, not the Courts.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on cloture so that this matter can be fully debated and everyone can be informed of the law supporting this measure. Do not fall victim to attempts to confuse this issue before us. Do not let your arm be twisted with threats that you should ignore your constituents and vote for the party line that is based on misinformation, not the law. All we are asking is that you allow an up or down vote on this measure.

Recently, the President of the United States George W. Bush submitted the name of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed by this body because of his intellectual background and primarily because of his conservative views.

Recently, Chief Justice Roberts laid out arguments as to how and why Native Hawaiians are a separate and distinct aboriginal indigenous people who fall within Congress's plenary authority over Indian tribes. Among the many things that the Chief Justice said in his brief is the following:

Congress' broad authority over Indian affairs that reaches

the shores of Hawaii too.

He went further to say:

The Constitution gives Congress--not the courts--authority

to acknowledge and extinguish claims based on aboriginal

status.

Chief Justice Roberts further stated:

Congress has established with Hawaiians the same type of

``unique legal relationships'' that exist with respect to the

Indian tribes who enjoy the ``same rights and privileges''

accorded Hawaiians . . .

I urge all of my colleagues to read this excellent brief by now Chief Justice Roberts.

Mr. President, many things have been said about what this bill will do and will not do. Some were rather outrageous, I must say. For example, it was argued that this bill will establish a precedent for the recognition of tribal status for Amish and Hasidic Jews or other groups.

I think it is just another attempt to scare our fellow Americans.

Congress has the authority to recognize government-to- government relations with aboriginal indigenous people because of their preexisting sovereignty over lands before European contact. None of the groups that have been named, such as the Amish or the Hasidic Jews, are preexisting sovereigns who exercised such authority.

While Congress has used plenary authority to recognize aboriginal indigenous people who reside in these former territories, Congress has never attempted to recognize the nonaboriginal nonindigenous people as a government, and it will not. We are not creating any precedent here.

Finally, the letter from the Department of Justice was mentioned. It was sent to our majority leader last evening.

Last year, the Justice Department sent a longer letter outlining substantive policy concerns. As a result of that letter, Senator Akaka and I, together with Governor Lingle, the Republican Governor of Hawaii, engaged in extensive negotiations and discussions for nearly 2 months with officials of the White House, the Justice Department, and OMB to address these policy concerns.

The result of these negotiations was contained in a substitute amendment identified as S. 364, which was introduced by Senator Akaka. He made a formal request that this bill be considered original text for consideration in this debate. Regretfully, that offer was rejected.

This letter from the Attorney General does not refer to S. 364, which they are well aware of because they helped us draft it. They refer to the old bill, S. 147, which we intend to substitute with S. 364.

Yes, we are aware of the shortcomings of S. 147, and we met for nearly 2 months to clarify that.

I hope my colleagues will vote yes on this cloture motion so this matter can be more fully debated and everyone can

be fully informed of the laws supporting the measure.

All we are asking for is an up-or-down vote on this measure. We just want an opportunity to debate this measure.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise at this moment to join Senator Akaka speaking in support of the measure before us this day.

This bill, which is long overdue, finally will have a chance for fair consideration by this body. I hope this bill will finally begin the process of extending a Federal policy of self-governance to Native Hawaiians and will repair the injustices of the past.

As I sat here listening to the speeches, I must candidly say that I was a bit disappointed that some of my friends who oppose this measure have mischaracterized the history of my State.

Hawaii's history, as recounted by Senator Akaka, is well-documented. After Captain James Cook arrived in Hawaii, other foreigners came to the islands, often as laborers. Over the ensuing years, like other Native people who carried no immunities to the diseases that accompanied the waves of immigrants to their shores, the Native Hawaiian population was reduced from estimates as high as several hundred thousand people at the time of first recorded western contact to a little over forty thousand. An 1854 smallpox epidemic, for instance, took the lives of 6,000 people--almost 10 percent of the population at that time.

Along with the decimating diseases, the social and economic conditions of the Native Hawaiians deteriorated as well. The influence of non-Native Hawaiians continued to grow. On January 17, 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom was illegally overthrown with the assistance of the United States. The United States' involvement in the overthrow is thoroughly documented in a report commissioned by President Grover Cleveland.

My parents and grandparents lived through Hawaii's trying times. In my generation, I was raised with an understanding that the Native Hawaiian people had been wronged. It is for this reason that I, and the other citizens of Hawaii, ask you to do the right thing for the Native Hawaiian people.

Some of our colleagues have also questioned Congress' authority to deal with Native Hawaiians. But after serving for 28 years on the Committee on Indian Affairs, with approximately seventeen years as either the Chairman or the Vice Chairman, I am very informed of the law that governs the Federal relations with the aboriginal, native people of the United States. As such, I want to assure everyone that Congress possesses the authority to pass this measure.

Congress' authority over Indian matters has been repeatedly affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. Its power is explicit in the Constitution. It derives from the Indian Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, clause 3, which vests Congress with the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes. It also stems from the Treaty Clause, which authorizes the Federal Government to enter into treaties with other nations, as was done with various Indian tribes and the Native Hawaiian government. Although the Constitution does not authorize the Congress to make treaties, this provision does authorize Congress to address matters with which the treaties made pursuant to that power pertain.

In addition, the Court has found that Congress' power over Indian affairs derives from the Property Clause, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, which vests the Congress with the authority to ``dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.'' This provision was used by Congress to set aside public lands for the use of Alaska Natives and a colony, established for scattered, unrelated Indians. In Hawaii, approximately 203,500 acres of land were similarly set aside for Native Hawaiians.

And Congress' authority over Indian affairs also derives from the Debt Clause and, like any other national government, its inherent authority that is a necessary concomitant of nationality.

Congress' authority is broad and plenary. The Federal policy towards the aboriginal, indigenous people has not been constant nor consistent. But changing Federal policy is fully within the scope of Congress' authority. Congress has exercised this authority to recognize the inherent sovereignty of an Indian tribe, to terminate the government- to-government relationship between the United States and an Indian tribe, to establish a process for the reorganization of a tribal government, as Congress did with the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, and to restore tribes to their original federally-recognized status.

In fact, after terminating the government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes, Congress enacted legislation to restore the sovereign status of some of those tribes. Even though the Indian tribe did not exercise federally-recognized sovereign authority during the time its relationship with the United States was terminated, this was not a barrier to an exercise of Congress' power to restore the federal recognition of the native government.

When Congress exercises its authority in this manner, it is not ``creating'' sovereignty nor is it ``creating'' a native government. Native sovereignty preexisted the formation of the United States. For the purpose of carrying on government-to-government relations, the form of native government is irrelevant.

Congress established the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 to provide a process for the reorganization of other native governments. This Act does not require that Native governments be organized as tribes. Senate bill 147 proposes to provide a similar process for Native Hawaiians.

Although Native Hawaiians are not Indians nor are they organized as Indian tribes, Congress is not precluded from dealing with them in the manner proposed by the bill. The Constitution is a living document. The authors of the Constitution intended that Congress' authority to deal with Indian tribes include all aboriginal, indigenous people of the United States, including American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians, wherever they were located and however they were organized.

The Supreme Court has affirmed Congress' authority over other aboriginal, indigenous people of the United States, regardless of whether they are ``Indians'' or organized as a ``tribe,'' as those terms are defined today. It is irrelevant whether the native peoples are located within the original territory of the United States or in territory subsequently acquired, whether within or without the limits of a state. In pre-colonial times, the term ``Indian'' was defined to mean ``native'' or ``the aboriginal, indigenous people'' and the term ``tribe'' was defined to mean ``a distinct body of people.''

Correspondence between James Monroe and James Madison concerning the construction of what was to become the Commerce Clause make no reference to Indian tribes, but they do discuss Indians. Clearly, our founding fathers did not intend the term ``Indian tribes'' as used in the Constitution to only extend to those pre-existing Indian tribes that were dependent nations at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Under this interpretation, Congress would have no authority.

As Senator Akaka relayed, the first recorded western contact with the aboriginal indigenous people of Hawaii was the arrival of Captain James Cook in 1778. While recording his encounters with Native Hawaiians, Captain Cook referred to Native Hawaiians as ``Indians.'' His accounts reported that the Native Hawaiians ``lived in a highly organized, self- sufficient, subsistent social system based on a communal land

tenure with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion.'' In other words, Native Hawaiians were a distinct body of people.

The Court has upheld Congress' exercise of its broad, plenary authority to recognize Indian tribes who were and are not Indians nor were they organized as tribes at the time that Federal recognition was extended to them. For instance, the Court affirmed Congress' recognition of an Indian tribe that consisted of scattered, unrelated individual Indians, who were forced onto a reservation or colony. Even after the Supreme Court questioned whether the Pueblos of New Mexico were Indians and found that they were not organized as tribes, the Supreme Court upheld Congress' exercise of authority to recognize and treat Pueblos as Indian tribes. Despite numerous opportunities to do so, the Supreme Court has not questioned Congress' authority to treat Alaska Natives as Indian tribes.

Whether the reference was to ``Indians'' or ``Indian tribes,'' the Framers of the Constitution did not intend those terms to limit Congress' authority, but rather intended those terms as descriptions of the native people who occupied and possessed the lands that were later to become the United States. When the Constitution was drafted, they authorized the Federal government to enter into treaties with the Indian tribes because they were considered independent sovereigns, not dependent nations.

Any other interpretation would mean that Congress has been acting illegally since the formation of the Union and that the Supreme Court has wrongly decided the scope of Congress' authority.

The legal basis for the distinct status of the indigenous, native people is their sovereignty, which preexisted the formation of our country, over lands that became the United States.

This sovereignty is not created by Congress. This sovereignty did not need to be retained through treaties with the Federal government. Treaties are a mechanism for recognizing the inherent sovereignty of another government.

Like the other Federally recognized Indian tribes, Native Hawaiians are a distinct body of aboriginal, indigenous people who exercised sovereignty over land that is now the United States. Like other Native groups, the Federal government has a unique responsibility for Native Hawaiians. On November 23, 1993, the United States apologized for its role in the overthrow, acknowledged the historical significance of the overthrow and the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people, and committed to provide a foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people. As such, Congress has assumed a special relationship with them.

Giving effect to the special relationship between the federal government and the native peoples is not racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court has sustained Congress' action towards Indian tribes as constitutionally valid as long as our actions are reasonable and rationally designed to further self-government and to fulfill our unique obligation towards them.

Between 1826 and 1887, the United States entered into treaties with the Native Hawaiian government. In 1893, we assisted in the illegal overthrow of their government and extinguished the government-to- government relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian government. Now, we propose to establish a process that may lead to the restoration of a Federal relationship with a Native Hawaiian governing entity. This bill will authorize Native Hawaiians' with more autonomy to undertake activities that they believe will better their conditions and meet their other needs in the manner that they deem best. It fulfills the Federal government's unique obligation towards Native Hawaiians. As such, it is not racially discriminatory.

Some have suggested that the Supreme Court, in Rice v. Cayetano, has ruled that the Congress does not have the authority to enact this bill.

This is incorrect.

In 1978, the citizens of Hawaii convened a constitutional convention and proposed amendments to the State's constitution to afford Native Hawaiians a means by which to express their right to self-governance and self-determination. They did so by creating the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which is governed by a Board of Trustees. Because this was intended to be the State counterpart to the Federal policy of extending self-governance and self-determination to the aboriginal, indigenous people, the citizens of Hawaii limited eligibility to vote for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees to Native Hawaiians.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is, however, a State agency. Thus, when the Court considered this matter, it ruled that the voter eligibility requirement violated the Fifteenth Amendment as a State may not disenfranchise voters by limiting voter eligibility for a State agency to one group of people. The Court expressly refused to address whether Congress had the authority to treat Native Hawaiians as Indian tribes. In passing, however, the Court mentioned that if the issue were before the Court, it would look to whether Congress has treated Native Hawaiians in the same manner as it has treated Indian tribes.

Congress has done that.

Hawaii became a territory of the United States in 1900 yet by 1910, Congress began treating Native Hawaiians as Indians when it appropriated funds for the ethnological research of American Indians and Native Hawaiians.

In 1921, after receiving testimony from the then Secretary of the Department of Interior who testified that the Native Hawaiians were our wards and ``for whom in a sense we are trustees . . .,'' and who explained that Congress had the right to use the same authority for dealing with Indians to set aside lands for Native Hawaiians, Congress did just that. Congress set aside land for Native Hawaiians as part of its trust responsibility to them.

In 1938, Congress recognized certain Native Hawaiian fishing rights in Hawaii National Park, in a manner similar to Congress' recognition of retained tribal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights in some national parks.

In the 1950s, Congress was terminating its government-to-government relationship with some Indian tribes and delegating some of its authority over Indian affairs to the various States, through such laws as Public Law 83-280, which delegated certain Federal authority of Indian affairs to some States. At this time, Hawaii was seeking to become the fiftieth State. Consequently, Hawaii's admission to the Union was conditioned on its administration of the public trust established pursuant to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.

In 1972, a Native Hawaiian employment preference was enacted in the same manner that Congress enacted Indian preference laws. The Indian preference law was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutionally sound and consistent with laws designed to preclude discrimination in the workplace.

Notably, this was the same year that the Equal Employment Opportunities Act of 1972, which prohibited discrimination in the workplace, was enacted into law. I mention this for a reason. Congress is an intelligent, thoughtful body. It is highly unlikely that Congress would have adopted one law prohibiting discrimination in the workplace while at the same time enacting a Native Hawaiian employment preference, unless Native Hawaiians were exempt from the broader bill because Congress treats them in the same manner that Congress treats Indian tribes.

Only two years after the United States Supreme Court held that Indian preference laws were not racially discriminatory because of Congress unique responsibility towards Indian tribes, a second Native Hawaiian employment preference law was enacted. Clearly, Congress considered Native Hawaiians as having the same status as Indian tribes.

There are many more laws like these but I will not list all of them. In total, however, over 160 laws concerning Native Hawaiians have been enacted into law. Within the last five years, we have enacted additional laws, including laws that have legislatively reaffirmed our trust relationship with Native Hawaiians. Under the theory of those opposing the bill, all of these laws are illegal.

Although Senator Akaka explained the process established by the bill in detail, I want to briefly reiterate some of his comments. This bill establishes a

process for the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian governing entity. The process is similar to processes established for the recognition of other aboriginal, indigenous people.

Upon enactment of the bill, a Commission will be created to determine whether those who voluntarily choose to participate in the Native Hawaiian governing entity meet the eligibility criteria. The Commission will prepare a roll, which the Secretary must certify. An Interim Governing Council will be established with no powers except to prepare organic governing documents for the approval of those listed on the certified roll. Once this has been approved by the membership, it must be certified by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

If, and when, the Secretary certifies the organic governing documents, elections for Native Hawaiian government officials must be held in accordance with the organic governing documents. At this point, the Native Hawaiian governing entity still has no power. Instead, the Native Hawaiian governing entity must negotiate with the State of Hawaii and the Federal government for any powers and authority as well as other rights.

This will be a long, thorough process that will take years to complete. And this will not be the last time that the Congress will have an opportunity to address the power and authorities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Bills will need to be introduced in the Congress for the enactment of implementing legislation. They will be referred to the relevant committees of jurisdiction of each House. There will be votes in each body to approve implementing legislation and the President will have to sign such legislation into law.

A similar process will be required for changes to State law. The citizens of Hawaii, through their State representatives, will have an opportunity to be involved in any changes in State law. Any changes to the State's constitution must be submitted to the voters of the State.

Before closing, I want to address some misconceptions regarding this measure and clearly inform my colleagues about what this bill does and does not provide.

This bill does not create sovereignty or extend Federal recognition to the Native Hawaiian governing entity upon passage of this bill. Instead this bill establishes the process that I outlined. As I discussed earlier, any sovereignty by the Native Hawaiian governing entity, if and when it is recognized, is inherent and preexisted Hawaii's inclusion into the Union.

Any governmental powers and authority that the Native Hawaiian governing entity will exercise must be negotiated with the Federal and State governments.

This bill does not extend jurisdiction to the Native Hawaiian governing entity over non-Native Hawaiians. Any jurisdictional authority must be negotiated between the Native Hawaiian governing entity, the State of Hawaii, and the Federal government.

Any jurisdiction that may be granted through the negotiations will be within the boundaries of the State of Hawaii, not over the United States. Critics of the bill confuse the eligibility roll with the potential jurisdiction of the governing entity. Like other native governments in the United States, anyone meeting the eligibility criteria defined in the bill or the organic governing documents, regardless of where they live, are eligible for membership in the governing entity.

The bill prohibits the application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which is the only Federal authority for the exercise of gaming by Indian tribes. Additionally, the State of Hawaii is one of only two states that criminally prohibits gaming.

The bill expressly provides that Native Hawaiians will not be eligible for Indian or Alaska Native programs. It is unnecessary to include Native Hawaiians in other programs as Congress has already established programs specifically for them.

The cost of the bill is minimal. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost $1 million for fiscal years 2006 through 2008, and less than $500,000 per year thereafter. The Committee on Indian Affairs has also been informed that the enactment of this bill will not affect direct spending or revenues.

I want to make it clear to all of my colleagues that this bill does not propose anything that we have not already done for Indian tribes. Years ago, Congress recognized that it has a trust obligation to the Native Hawaiians. Congress has treated Native Hawaiians in the same manner as it has dealt with Indian tribes. It is time that Congress formally extends its policy of self-government and self-determination to Native Hawaiians.

Mr. President, I want my colleagues to know that this bill will unite Hawaii. Senate bill 147, already has the broad support of both Republicans and Democrats in Hawaii. It is now time to reach out and correct the wrong that was committed so many years ago. I hope that my colleagues will also provide their support by voting for this bill.

As a member of the territorial senate at the time of statehood, and as former majority leader of the house, I was privileged to be involved in discussions and decisions reached between the Government of the United States and the government of the territory of Hawaii. Moreover, as our State's first Member of Congress, I was actively involved in the discussions and agreements between the Government of the United States and the government of the State of Hawaii.

My parents and my grandparents lived in Hawaii through Hawaii's trying times. My grandparents were immigrants from Japan. In my generation, I was raised with an understanding that the Native Hawaiian people had been wronged. This is a part of history that very few of my constituents are fully aware of. But my mother, when she was at the age of 4, lost her father who was working in the fields of the plantation. She had lost her mother at the time of childbirth, so she found herself an orphan at a very early age. But fortunately, a Native Hawaiian couple learned about this, came forward to the plantation village, and took her by the hand and adopted her. And for years she lived as a Hawaiian with the Hawaiian family, and she never forgot that.

For many reasons, including that, I and other citizens of the State of Hawaii ask all of my colleagues here to do the right thing for the Native Hawaiian people. Some of our colleagues have questioned Congress's authority to deal with Native Hawaiians, but after serving for 28 years on the Committee on Indian Affairs and approximately 17 years as either the chair or the vice chair, I believe most humbly that I am sufficiently informed of the law that governs the Federal relations with the aboriginal native people of the United States. There is no question that Native Hawaiians are aboriginal, and they are native and indigenous. They were there before the first White man came. They were there before the first Americans came.

Based on my decades of study and experience, I would like to assure my colleagues that Congress does possess the authority to pass this measure.

We speak of the special relationship between the Federal Government and the native peoples, and some have suggested that this was racially discriminatory.

Mr. President, history shows that Native Hawaiians are good and patriotic Americans. The people of Hawaii are good and patriotic Americans. If you look at the records of World War II and all the wars thereafter, including the present one in Iraq, you will find a disproportionately large number of men and women from Hawaii serving in uniform and standing in harm's way for the people of the United States. In fact, for this small, little State, with about the smallest population, we have more Medals of Honor on a per capita basis than any other State. Our government recognizes the patriotism of Native Hawaiians and the people of Hawaii. In fact, the first Native Hawaiian in the Vietnam war to receive the Medal of Honor was--yes--a Native Hawaiian, and he was one of the first in the Nation to do so. They are good American citizens.

This bill, even if it becomes the ultimate law of this land, will not change the situation. Native Hawaiians will be subject to every provision in the Constitution of the United States. That is the fact. They will be subject to the laws of the State of Hawaii and the United States. They will be subject to

the laws of the county of Hawaii. If any changes are made--for example, if we decide, as we did with many Indian nations, to give them the power to arrest--if someone goes speeding through the streets--that power has to be negotiated and granted by the supersovereign, the county to the Indian tribe. It does not come naturally.

The Native Hawaiian government, if you want to call it such, will not have the authority to establish its own army. It will not have the authority to coin its own currency. Yes, they can set up businesses, establish schools if they wish to, but they will never, under this bill, pass any measure that will be in contravention with the Constitution of the United States or the laws of the United States.

This bill does not secede the State of Hawaii or any part thereof from the United States. The lands that we speak of are lands that have been set aside, not by us, but by the Government of the United States in 1920. In 1920, the Members of Congress, without the urging of Native Hawaiians, without the urging of the people of Hawaii, finally came to their senses and realized that the takeover had been illegal, and that Native Hawaiians were indigenous, aboriginal people of the territory of Hawaii at that time.

So, on their own initiative, this Congress established a law to set aside lands which they called the homestead lands. And those qualified, 50 percent Hawaiian blood, were placed on these lands. It is still there, and Native Hawaiians still live in those places. If they ever have this law in the books, these lands will become the land base of this new entity.

They are not taking away anything from the people of Hawaii. They are not taking away anything from the Government of the United States. They will continue to pay taxes. They will continue to put on the uniform of the United States. They will continue to stand in harm's way.

I want Congress to know that, if anything, this bill will unite the people of Hawaii. This bill has the broad support of Republicans and Democrats in the State. Somewhere in this gallery is the Governor of Hawaii, the Honorable Linda Lingle. And she is a Republican. She supports this measure.

The counties of Hawaii, every one them--Oahu, Kauai, Maui and Hawaii--would support this measure. The State of Hawaii legislature, the House and the Senate, unanimously support this measure.

We have heard results of polls. We are politicians. We know all about polls. I can set up a poll myself and suggest that 99 percent of the people of Hawaii support the war in Iraq, and we know that is wrong. Yes, we can set up our own polls.

But I can tell you the legislature supports it, the county governments support it, the Governor does, and all Members of the congressional delegation. I don't know why people would say that the people of Hawaii do not support this measure.

I think it is about time that we reach out and correct the wrong that was committed in 1893. Yes, at that time the representative of the people of the United States directed a marine company on an American ship to land and take over the government. They imprisoned our queen. No crime had been committed. When the new government took over and turned itself over to the government of the United States and said, Please take us in, the President of the United States was President Cleveland at that time. He sent his envoy to Hawaii to look over the case. When he learned that the takeover had been illegal, he said this was an un-American act and we will not take over. The queen is free.

I am a proud American. I am glad that we are part of the United States of America. Senator Akaka and I took part in World War II. We put on the uniform. He served in the Pacific. I served in Europe. We would do it again. I know our people will do it again.

I wish to discuss the report on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act which was released by the United States Commission on Civil Rights on May 4, 2006 and the ill-founded reliance on the report by some of my colleagues. It is important to note that the measure before us is supported by leading civil rights organizations, such as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the National Congress of American Indians. There are many more but in the interest of time, I will only note that I am more than willing to provide any Member with a more detailed list of leading civil rights organizational support for this measure.

With respect to the Commission's report, I urge my colleagues to thoroughly examine the report and the proceedings leading to it. I say this because the majority's report lacks credibility--both procedurally and substantively. I am confident that once my colleagues learn of the serious procedural and substantive flaws of the report, they will join me in rejecting the Commission's report and supporting S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2006.

The first point that my colleagues need to consider is that this report is not even based on the measure that will be before us. During the Commission's January briefing, the Commissioners were provided with a copy of the Substitute Amendment that was publicly available since last fall and that Senator Akaka recently introduced as a separate measure. It is this language on which we will vote. Yet, even though the Commission was informed of this, the Commission based its recommendation on the bill ``as reported out of committee on May 16, 2005,'' which is substantially different from the substitute amendment.

Perhaps some think this was an oversight on behalf of the Commission but I assure you--it was not. During the Commission's May 4, 2006 meeting, Commissioner Taylor specifically asked to which version of the bill this report referred. After a discussion on the record in which it was readily apparent that the Commissioners had no idea which version the report was referring to, the Commission had to recess for 10 minutes so that staff could determine to which version the report was referencing. Then, after calling the meeting back to order, the Commission stated that the report pertained to the version as reported by the Committee on Indian Affairs, ignoring entirely the substitute amendment, which they had been informed would be the measure considered by the Senate.

Perhaps some may be thinking--what difference does it make? Let me assure you, the differences between the version reported by the Committee on Indian Affairs and the substitute amendment are substantively different. In fact, the measure that will be before us reflects several weeks of negotiation between the administration and congressional Members to address concerns raised by the administration.

Before moving on to the substantive flaws of the Commission's report, I want to point out that one Commissioner filed an amicus brief in Rice v. Cayetano without ever publicly disclosing that involvement or recusing herself from the Commission's proceedings. Apparently, actions like these are par for the course for this Commission. It is actions similar to these that led to the recent findings of the Government Accountability Office that the Commission lacked procedures to ensure objectivity in its reports.

The Commission's majority report also suffers from serious substantive flaws. Unlike the careful, thoughtful analyses contained in the dissenting opinions, the majority report is devoid of any analysis of the underlying bill or arguments. Instead, the so-called ``report'' is merely a summary of the briefing held in January, a one sentence recommendation, and copies of the written testimonies provided during the January briefing. It is nothing more than ``he said this and she said that.'' Nothing in this document explains why one argument was rejected and another one accepted. I believe it is because the commissioners know what we know--the law is on our side.

Although this is apparently consistent with the way this Commission does business, it is unacceptable. The Government Accountability Office issued a report last week specific to the Commission and recommended that the Commission should strengthen its quality assurance policies and make better use of its State Advisory Committees. More specifically, the Government Accountability Office found that the Commission lacked policies for ensuring that its reports are objective. It also found that the Commission lacks accountability for some decisions made in its reports because it lacks documentation for its decisions. A review of

the Commission's report on Native Hawaiians illustrates that this lack of accountability is clearly evident in this instance, for the Commission provides no rationale for its finding on S. 147.

Another flaw with the Commission's recent report is that the Commission ignored two previous reports on related issues by the Hawaii State Advisory Committee. The Government Accountability Office acknowledged that the State Advisory Committees are the eyes and ears of the Commission. It also found that while the Commission does not have policies to ensure objectivity for its own documents, the Commission does have quality assurance policies in place for State Advisory Committee products, including a policy to incorporate balanced, varied, and opposing perspectives in their hearings and reports. The Hawaii State Advisory Committee heard from numerous witnesses and spent substantial time preparing two articulate, balanced reports on Native Hawaiian issues relevant to the measure before us. Yet the Commission ignored these reports. Imagine reports from the State Advisory Committee in your respective State--the entity with the most knowledge of local issues, that is the entity most in touch with the local communities, and that has quality assurance policies--not even being consulted or informed about a briefing on an issue that only impacts your State.

Because the Commission's recommendation was based on a version of the bill that is not before us, is void of any analysis and is not supported by Supreme Court case law, it is difficult to address any arguments that may have influenced the Commission's decisions. Thus, I will take this opportunity to clarify some misconceptions that some of the Commissioners appear to possess.

First, this matter is not race-based as the Commission's recommendation implies. Instead, the Commission appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Federal Indian law. It is undisputed that the Supreme Court has upheld Congress's plenary authority over Indian tribes, including those aboriginal, indigenous peoples who exercised control over land that comprise the United States even if those peoples were not called Indians, were not organized as tribes, and did not have a government at that time.

I am confident that if challenged, this measure will be upheld. For as then Attorney John Roberts, now Chief Justice Roberts, stated during oral argument in Rice v. Cayetano, ``The Framers, when they used the word Indian, meant any of the Native inhabitants of the new-found land'' and that Congress's ``power does, in fact, extend to Indians who are not members of a tribe.''

Second, it is absurd that there are some who think that because Congress delegated some authority to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to develop regulations to administratively recognize a group of people as an Indian tribe, Congress's power to exercise its own authority is now bound by those regulations. Let me remind everyone--the Congress is not subject to an agency's regulations. Congress still possesses the power to restore recognition to an Indian tribe and we have used this authority repeatedly without first determining whether a group met the criteria set forth in the Secretary's regulation.

I thank the Chair for allowing me this opportunity to educate my colleagues about the true impact of the Commission's report on this matter. I encourage my colleagues to examine the transcript of the January briefing and the May meeting, the report with the dissenting opinions, as well as the recent Government Accountability Office Report on the Commission. I am confident that after doing so, my colleagues will understand that any reliance on this report is misguided.

Mr. President, as Congress has done for many other Indian tribes, this measure merely sets up a process to formally extend the Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians. This bill is about fairness and justice for Native Hawaiians--Native Hawaiians will finally be afforded the same respect that the Federal Government affords to other Native Americans. Given that Congress has already enacted over 160 Federal laws for the benefit of Native Hawaiians, there will be no harm to other Native Americans and equally important, there will be no negative effects on the other citizens of Hawaii.

There are some who claim that this bill is race-based and will divide Hawaii because of race-based preferences stemming from this measure. This is not true. This bill is not based on race and those who make this claim do not understand the people or history of Hawaii. As I said, in 1893, the United States participated in the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which resulted in longstanding issues in Hawaii that need to be addressed. This measure will ensure those issues are addressed fairly and equitably. It is because this measure starts the process of healing old wounds and bringing all of Hawaii's citizens together that the vast majority of Hawaii's citizens support passage of this bill.

I ask my colleagues to ignore the rhetoric and to look at the facts: The entire Hawaii Congressional delegation supports, and is actively working on, passage of this bill. Our distinguished colleagues in the House, Congressmen Abercrombie and Case, have introduced a companion measure, and both testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in support of this bill and its importance to Hawaii. As Congressman Case stated, this bill is ``the most vital single piece of legislation for our Hawaii since Statehood.''

Hawaii's Republican Governor supports the bill and has stated that ``this bill will be a unifying force in Hawaii'' and that it is ``vital to the continued character of the State of Hawaii.'' Both Hawaii's State House and Senate have repeatedly and overwhelmingly approved a resolution in support of this bill. We were elected by Hawaii's citizens to represent their interests and we believe that this measure is in their best interests. We would not support a bill that would racially divide the people who elected us into office. Trust that we have the best interests of all of Hawaii's citizens in mind.

Beyond Hawaii's elected officials, Hawaii's two largest newspapers have written editorials in support of passage of this bill or condemning allegations that this bill is racially discriminatory. The Honolulu Advertiser recently stated ``this measure forges a middle path, the most reasonable course toward resolution--if only Congress would give it a shot.'' The people of Hawaii support it because, as the Advertiser recognized, ``Federal recognition would help chart a course for the difficult but necessary process of resolving festering disputes and in healing the breach caused by the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.''

Hawaii's business community, including the two largest banks, support passage of this bill. The vast majority of Hawaii's citizens support passage of this bill. Given this diverse and broad level of support, I do not understand how any of my colleagues can oppose passage of this measure by claiming that it will divide Hawaii based on race.

Instead, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure as it is the fair, just thing to do and all of Hawaii's citizens will benefit from this measure when the longstanding issues will be finally be put to rest. Without this measure, without your support, those issues will remain unresolved.

Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, S. 147 does nothing more than to establish a process to formally extend the same Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination that has been extended to other Native Americans to Native Hawaiians. When one looks at the impact that this policy has had on other Native Americans, it is clear that this policy will benefit not only Native Hawaiians but also all of Hawaii's citizens.

Since the 1970s, the Federal Government has had a policy of self- determination and self-governance for Native peoples. The success of this policy has been demonstrated over and over and it is not stopping. Every day, we see improvements in native communities as a result of this policy. Every day, we see State and local communities benefiting from Native Americans exercising self-governance. It is time that Native Hawaiians, and Hawaii, also benefit from this policy.

While Native Hawaiians are not Indians nor is there Indian Country in Hawaii--nor will there be with passage of this measure--the experience of other Native Americans since the Federal

Government adopted a policy of self-governance for Indian tribes is informative. Since implementation of the Federal policy of self- determination, other Native Americans have seen a revitalization in their native languages and culture. Because of this policy, other Native Americans have experienced higher educational achievement, stronger economies, better mental and physical health and less reliance on social programs. Although other Native Americans still have a long way to go, the policy of self-governance and self-determination has repeatedly been called the most successful Federal policy for Native Americans. I am confident that Native Hawaiians will have a similar experience and that all of Hawaii's citizens will receive benefits.

Self-governance is critical to maintaining Native Hawaiian culture, language and identity. Native Hawaiians were affected by the various Federal policies the United States had towards Indian tribes. So like other Native Americans, Native Hawaiians were prohibited from speaking their native language and practicing their culture. Native Hawaiians experience similar social characteristics--often ranking the highest in the least desirable categories and the lowest in the most desirable categories. They suffer from some of the highest rates of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, and other health disparities. They experience the highest rates of poverty in the State of Hawaii and have some of the lowest educational achievement. Native Hawaiian youth suffer from high rates of depression and are more likely to attempt suicide than other youth in Hawaii. Although it will not happen overnight, Native Hawaiian self-governance will reverse these trends. Testimony before the Indian Affairs Committee indicated a link between teen suicide and depression and the lack of language and culture in other native communities. Testimony also indicated that when Indian tribes exercise self-governance and take steps to regain or incorporate their language and culture into everyday life, mental health issues decrease.

Preserving and revitalizing native language, culture and identity leads to stronger personal identity and cultural awareness. Native self-governance will lead to culturally appropriate physical and mental health programs, as well as more relevant education curriculum, for Native individuals. This, in turn, will lead to better health, higher academic achievement, strong native leadership, increased employment, less poverty and decreased dependence on Federal and State social programs. Self-governance will ensure that Native Hawaiians retain their dignity.

Consequently, all people of Hawaii will benefit. Decreased reliance on social programs, fewer children needing remedial education, and more preventative, culturally appropriate health programs will result in less funding needs over the long term. But this is not all. Hawaii is already full of rich, diverse cultures which are celebrated throughout the year but, with this measure, all of Hawaii will be able to celebrate an ever stronger native culture. Non-natives will learn more about the islands based on the traditional knowledge of Native Hawaiians gained over centuries of island occupation. Higher achieving children will no longer have to wait for their counterparts to catch up. Instead of remedial education classes, there will be more rigorous, challenging classes for our youth. Visitors already come to Hawaii to admire and appreciate the unique Hawaiian culture; with this measure, I am confident even more will come to experience the stronger, richer Native Hawaiian culture.

I invite all of my colleagues to Hawaii to experience our unique culture, diversity and spirit of aloha. This bill will enhance Native Hawaiian self-governance while benefiting all of Hawaii's citizens. This is why I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. This is why our distinguished House colleagues, Congressmen Abercrombie and Case have introduced a companion measure. I respectfully urge my colleagues to help Hawaii by supporting S. 147.

I just hope my colleagues will not look upon Native Hawaiians as those who are trying to get out of the United States. They are not. We are just trying to tell them: Yes, we recognize the wrong we have committed. Therefore, use the lands that we have provided you. Set up a government. But this is what you may do. You may set up your schools, you may set up businesses. What is wrong with that? We are not asking to establish a government in there that will put up a fence and keep everyone out. That government will not establish an army to attack us.

This is the American thing to do; the least we can do. And, incidentally, the National Congress of American Indians, representing the Indian nations of this Nation, support this measure. Alaskan natives, Eskimos, support this measure.

Granted, there are those who oppose this measure. But I just hope that they will look into their hearts and look into the hearts of Native Hawaiians. They are good people. They just want to know that someday they can tell their grandchildren the wrong that was committed in 1830 has been rectified.

I am certain my colleagues will do so. I thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to today in support of the legislation introduced by my colleagues Senators Snowe and Dorgan to preserve a founding principle of communications law that is critical to the promotion of innovation and opportunity for all Americans. The preservation of the open, non-discriminatory architecture of the Internet is vital to the American economy and society. Over a relatively short timeframe, the Internet has become a robust engine for market innovation, economic growth, social discourse, and the free flow of ideas precisely because it has allowed consumer choice and control over the use of lawful content, applications and services. In turn, anyone with a good idea has been able to connect to consumers and compete on a level playing field for consumers' business. The marketplace has picked winners and losers, and not a central gatekeeper. This bedrock concept of connecting innovators and consumers without interference, known as ``net neutrality,'' has been a hallmark feature of the Internet and is a principle reason why America leads the world in online innovation.

Regrettably, without this legislation that heritage may be at risk as traditional rules that have required communications operators to follow principles of non-discrimination no longer apply. In August 2005, the FCC refused to adopt meaningful and enforceable consumer safeguards at the time it classified DSL and cable modem as an information service. As a result, the bill that I have cosponsored with Senators Snowe and Dorgan is necessary to ensure that consumers and content companies have the ability to use the Internet without interference or gate-keeping by the network operators.

This bill responds to recent FCC decisions by preserving the openness of the Internet and thereby encourages the continued development of innovative Internet technologies, services, and content that has fueled the American economy. Specifically, under the bill, consumers will have the ability to access the content of their choosing, and Internet businesses will have the ability to compete head-to-head with network providers on the basis of the merits of their offerings.

As the father of the Internet, Vint Cerf, said to our Committee, the Internet is ``innovation without permission.'' The proposed legislation will ensure that the Internet indeed remains a platform that spawns innovation and economic development for the benefit of all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise to today in support of the legislation introduced by my colleagues Senators Snowe and Dorgan to preserve a founding principle of communications law that is critical to the promotion of innovation and opportunity for all Americans. The preservation of the open, non-discriminatory architecture of the Internet is vital to the American economy and society. Over a relatively short timeframe, the Internet has become a robust engine for market innovation, economic growth, social discourse, and the free flow of ideas precisely because it has allowed consumer choice and control over the use of lawful content, applications and services. In turn, anyone with a good idea has been able to connect to consumers and compete on a level playing field for consumers' business. The marketplace has picked winners and losers, and not a central gatekeeper. This bedrock concept of connecting innovators and consumers without interference, known as ``net neutrality,'' has been a hallmark feature of the Internet and is a principle reason why America leads the world in online innovation.

Regrettably, without this legislation that heritage may be at risk as traditional rules that have required communications operators to follow principles of non-discrimination no longer apply. In August 2005, the FCC refused to adopt meaningful and enforceable consumer safeguards at the time it classified DSL and cable modem as an information service. As a result, the bill that I have cosponsored with Senators Snowe and Dorgan is necessary to ensure that consumers and content companies have the ability to use the Internet without interference or gate-keeping by the network operators.

This bill responds to recent FCC decisions by preserving the openness of the Internet and thereby encourages the continued development of innovative Internet technologies, services, and content that has fueled the American economy. Specifically, under the bill, consumers will have the ability to access the content of their choosing, and Internet businesses will have the ability to compete head-to-head with network providers on the basis of the merits of their offerings.

As the father of the Internet, Vint Cerf, said to our Committee, the Internet is ``innovation without permission.'' The proposed legislation will ensure that the Internet indeed remains a platform that spawns innovation and economic development for the benefit of all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Akaka in support of his amendment that grants immigrant visas for alien children of Filipino veterans of World War II, who were naturalized pursuant to section 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990, a measure which I authored in the 101st Congress.

In recognition of Filipino veterans' contributions during World War II, the Congress, in March of 1942, amended the Nationality Act of 1940, and granted Filipino veterans the privilege of becoming United States citizens. The law expired on December 31, 1946. However, many Filipino veterans were denied the opportunity to apply for naturalization under this act because of an executive decision to remove the naturalization examiner from the Philippines for a 9-month period. The 9-month absence of a naturalization examiner was the basis of numerous lawsuits filed by Filipino World War II veterans. On July 17, 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Filipino World War II veterans had no statutory rights to citizenship under the expired provisions of the Nationality Act of 1940. Section 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990 was enacted to make naturalization available to those Filipino World War II veterans whose military service during the liberation of the Philippines rendered them deserving of United States citizenship. Approximately 25,000 veterans took advantage of the naturalization provision which expired in February 1995.

Unfortunately, the 1990 Act did not confer naturalization to the children of Filipino World War II veterans. Accordingly, they are enduring decades of family separation due to the long waiting periods under the numerical limit on immigrant visas for alien children of citizens of the United States. Many of these veterans are in their twilight years, and declining in health. They long to see their sons and daughters.

Heroes should never be forgotten or ignored, let us not turn our back on those who sacrificed so much. Let us show our appreciation to these gallant Filipino men and women who stood in harm's way with our American soldiers, and who fought the common enemy during World War II by granting their children a special immigrant status to immigrate and reunify with their aging parents who have made sacrifices for this county.

Mr. President, it is hard to believe, but Congress has not made any substantive improvements to the Nation's transportation security systems since 2002. Yet nearly every day, we are provided further reminders that our transportation modes, particularly port, cargo, rail, and public transit, remain vulnerable.

Given the urgent need for further improvements, Chairman Stevens and I have joined with the Banking Committee leaders, Senator Shelby and Senator Sarbanes, to advance a comprehensive transportation security bill that reflects the importance of our transportation infrastructure to the quality of life and economic health of the country.

Our legislation combines the port, cargo, and rail provisions of our Committee's Transportation Security Improvement Act with the Banking Committee's Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act. Together, the combined measure makes significant improvements to our port, cargo, rail, and public transit security nationwide.

It is important to note the level of Senate support for our approach. Not only have the elements of our bill been separately and unanimously approved by our respective Committees, our legislation has 42 Senate cosponsors on introduction. That kind of support demonstrates both the necessity of these improvements and the distinct possibility that we can move this bill this year.

The legislation that we introduce today, with its emphasis on the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, is the natural counterpart to the port security bill approved by the House of Representatives last week. The bills are directly compatible, and if the Senate moves quickly on this matter, we can proceed to conference and make real progress on transportation security before the session concludes.

This legislation reflects the port, cargo, and rail security expertise of the Commerce Committee and the public transit security expertise of the Banking Committee. On the Commerce Committee, we began examining port and cargo security in 1999 and had begun to craft security legislation even before the September 11 tragedy.

In 2001, our committee authored the landmark Maritime Transportation Security Act, MTSA, which established the foundation for the Nation's port and cargo security. Under the MTSA,

the Coast Guard became the lead agency on port security matters and created the Nation's current, international, inter-modal cargo security regime. That expertise and perspective is essential as we advance improvements to our maritime security laws.

However, the implementation of MTSA's security improvements has been weak and inconsistent. The Department of Homeland Security's budgets have not reflected port security's significance to the economy, and the Agency has missed numerous internal and legislated security deadlines. As a result, vulnerabilities remain.

Given the recent focus on the Nation's lingering, significant port security weaknesses, the country is now far more attuned to port and cargo security. The heartland is learning what the coasts have known for many years: Our national economy and physical security depend on strong port and cargo security.

Our legislation makes the many enhancements that are long overdue. It guides and enhances the Coast Guard's and the Department of Homeland Security's, DHS, authorities on maritime security. It improves examination of cargo before it reaches U.S. ports, provides a process for the speedy resumption of commerce in the event of an attack on a seaport, and expands the use of interagency operations centers.

Specifically, our legislation improves the examination of shipments before they reach U.S. shores. It calls upon the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, to develop standards for the evaluation, screening, and inspection of cargo destined for the U.S. prior to loading in a foreign port, and it provides greater targeting and scrutiny of high-risk cargo by requiring importers to file entry data 24-hours prior to loading at a foreign port.

Also, the legislation authorizes the random inspection of incoming cargo--a method which has proven to be 12 times more likely to find illicit shipments than traditional inspection methods.

In the event there is a seaport attack, our bill clarifies the requirements for expedited clearance of cargo through the Secure Systems of Transportation Program and extends the supply chain review to the initial point of loading. The bill also amends MTSA based on Government Accountability Office, GAO, recommendations to improve upon the Container Security Initiative, CSI, the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program, C-TPAT, and Automated Targeting System, ATS.

It is important to note that while our port security regime has significant weaknesses, the agencies involved have also begun to make some notable improvements in recent years. According to the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's most recent report on the port security grant program, the DHS has made substantial progress on the program and is beginning to deliver funding to the Nation's ports efficiently and effectively.

Our legislation builds upon the port and cargo security systems that have taken 4 years to develop and provides the resources necessary to strengthen port security infrastructure, planning, and coordination. Other pending proposals have sought to reorganize the DHS yet again and add an additional layer of bureaucracy through a new Office of Cargo Policy. Such changes are counterproductive and suggest a lack of understanding of local stakeholders' actual needs and given the need for immediate improvements, they make little sense.

Our committee has also brought its transportation security expertise to bear on the challenges facing rail security. Consistent with the Rail Security Act approved unanimously by the Senate in 108th Congress, our legislation requires the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to conduct a railroad sector threat assessment and submit prioritized recommendations for improving rail security. It also calls for the TSA and the Department of Transportation to clarify their respective roles for rail security.

Our legislation provides grants through TSA to Amtrak, freight railroads, and others to upgrade security across the entire railroad system. It provides funding through the Department of Transportation to make needed security and safety enhancements to Amtrak railroad tunnels in New York, Washington, and Baltimore.

Our bill creates a rail security research and development program through DHS and encourages the deployment of rail car tracking equipment for hazardous material rail shipments. It so requires railroads shipping high-hazard materials to create threat mitigation plans to protect high-consequence targets when specific threat information exists.

Finally, the bill authorizes studies to improve passenger rail screening and immigration processing along the U.S. northern border, creates a security training program for railroad workers, and provides whistleblower protections for workers who report security concerns.

All of these enhancements have been thoroughly vetted over several years of meticulous work. They have received the unanimous support of our committee membership, and in the case of the rail security provisions, the support of the full Senate in 2004.

In the 108th Congress, the Senate conclusive determined that transportation security and transportation safety could not be separated. Thus, given its oversight of the Coast Guard, TSA, and its general expertise in transportation matters, the Commerce Committee maintained jurisdiction over transportation security generally, and port, cargo, and rail security specifically. Similarly, the Banking Committee's expertise in urban transit has made it the Committee of jurisdiction for public transit security.

This expertise matters, particularly when crafting legislation that impacts how these systems operate. Transportation security legislation must reflect a balanced understanding of security, safety, and commerce. It is not enough to understand just one of those elements. Our economy is totally dependent upon efficient and effective transportation systems. Thus, our security policies must be robust, but they cannot ignore the realities of modern commerce nor the potential economic damage that could result from public policies that did not sufficiently take into account the resumption of our systems.

The legislation that we advance today reflects the Commerce and Banking Committees' expertise and understanding of this important balance. The time has come to advance these improvements, and nearly half of this body has already signed-on in support of this bill. Our legislation presents an opportunity to make immediate progress on transportation security, and it is my sincere hope that the Senate will act on this measure as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3601 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by the Parliamentarian as being germane. It has been discussed with the leadership of the committee.

It provides $1 million to the Environmental Protection Agency for assistance relating to assessments and monitoring of waters in the State of Hawaii.

As some may be aware, the State of Hawaii sustained extraordinarily heavy rains and flooding for more than 40 days and 40 nights, beginning February 20, 2006, devastating many families and destroying public and private property.

Unfortunately, on March 24, during this deluge, a Waikiki sewer line ruptured, sending more than 48 million gallons of raw sewage into the Ala Wai Canal, closing popular beaches in Waikiki.

The water quality of other beaches and streams on the Island of Oahu was severely impacted by the sustained heavy rains that caused sewer overflows and runoff of tremendous amounts of sediment and pollutants. Sewer systems are designed to handle wastewater and very small amounts of storm water that infiltrates into the pipe system.

During the continuous storm event, excessive amounts of water from the surrounding area infiltrated into the pipe, and homeowners discharged storm water into the sewer system. High bacterial levels exceeded the recreational water quality standards and the State Department of Health required beaches to be closed.

Mr. President, I hope the Senate will approve this amendment. I urge the adoption of the proposed amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up for its immediate consideration amendment No. 3673.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, as I noted earlier, heavy rains, for more than 40 days and 40 nights, devastated many families and destroyed public and private property in the State of Hawaii.

On the Island of Kauai, besides the serious damage to agricultural operations in these areas, the intensity and sustained nature of these storms caused a breach of two important reservoirs. A breach sent water and debris downstream at about 25 miles per hour and tore away homes and blocked off the north side of the island, hampering emergency services and assistance. In addition, floodwaters from the reservoir compromised the downstream reservoir, which public officials have now declared unstable and dangerous. These two reservoirs were built in the 1890s.

As a result of this failure, the only access to the northern part of the island sustained severe damage to the roadway, embankments, culverts, guardrails, and other structures. This damage was so great that the highway was shut down for over a week.

The emergency supplemental already includes $500,000 for the U.S. Geological Survey's Hydrologic Networks and Analysis Program for assistance in conducting assessments of critical reservoirs and dams.

This amendment asks for an additional $900,000, which would make it possible for the evaluation of critical reservoirs and dams throughout the State of Hawaii. I urge the adoption of this proposed amendment. It has been cleared by the Parliamentarian as being germane.

Mr. President, the provision under attack at this moment was not snuck in during the dark of night. It was openly discussed with the authorizing committee and was granted approval. It was openly discussed with the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and it was granted approval. That is why this provision is in the supplemental. It was approved by the authorizers and the appropriators. Thirdly, it was openly discussed with the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary issued a statement declaring that this was a disaster area.

Why do we call this a disaster? In one of those strange natural phenomena, for 40 days and 40 nights it rained in Hawaii. In one spot, it rained 126 inches in those 40 days. The average in most areas was 3 inches a day. Obviously, with such sustained heavy rains, you would have devastation. Many families lost their homes. Private property and public property were destroyed.

The $6 million in this provision is to assist the two sugar companies, Gay and Robinson and Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar, with their crop losses, damage to their irrigation canal system, and washed out roads.

It may interest my colleagues to know that on the island of Kauai, that plantation suffered more than 100 miles of roads being severely damaged. They are washed out and require complete rebuilding. Some of the most critical roads were the access roads to irrigation, and these will have to be rebuilt.

In addition to the roads, the irrigation infrastructure on the island of Kauai was totally damaged and destroyed. This infrastructure damage has two costs. One is the cost of repairing, obviously, and the other is the sugar losses due to production disruptions. And the same can be said for the island of Maui.

The yield losses alone for the two companies will far exceed the amount we are requesting for assistance. Losses have occurred because of this damage.

In summary, heavy rains caused tremendous infrastructure damages. The actual repair or reconstruction costs are much higher than the amount we are seeking.

I hope my colleagues will show some compassion and understanding. It is an emergency.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, if I may respond, on April 2 of this year, the rains ended. The Governor of Hawaii, in a most expeditious manner, gathered all the facts and filed a report with the President of the United States on April 10. That letter to the President requested that the President issue a declaration of disaster. It is now in the White House under consideration. It is unfortunate it is not before us, but we have been assured that it will be part of the declaration. I wish the record to show that the State of Hawaii did go through every regular step to make certain this request was done in the regular fashion.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, that would be my understanding.

I do agree with the distinguished ranking member of the full committee. He has accurately clarified this matter.

Mr. President, today, I have agreed to cosponsor telecommunications legislation introduced by Senator Stevens. I do so in a spirit of bipartisanship because I believe that bipartisanship will be required if we are to successfully update our Nation's communications laws. My cosponsorship, however, is not a demonstration of support for the bill itself.

This is the draft of the majority staff, and I have numerous, substantive objections to the bill in its current form. Given that my colleagues and I have not yet had an opportunity to weigh in on this critical legislation, I consider its introduction the very beginning of the legislative process.

Now that the majority staff's draft is no longer a secret, we can begin a full review of the bill and address the many issues important to me and my colleagues. At first glance, some provisions will need to be deleted or changed substantially and some issues still need to be addressed.

For example, we cannot ignore concerns about the potential for discrimination by network operators, but the draft appears to do just that by failing to create enforceable protections that will ensure network neutrality. Similarly, I believe that the provisions addressing video franchise reform must follow more closely the principles Senator Burns and I offered earlier this year. At a time of increasing consolidation in the communications industry, it is essential that we guarantee rights of interconnection, promote competition, and restrain anticompetitive behavior, particularly in markets where the Bell Companies continue to have significant market power. The legislation must promote the availability of affordable, broadband services and extend consumer protections on a competitively neutral basis.

Again, I recognize and honor the chairman's prerogative to set this legislative process into motion. The chairman is aware of my many concerns and has assured me that this will be a bipartisan process, and the Democrats will be at the table. I look forward to our discussions, and I am hopeful that we can develop a final product that everyone on our committee can support.

Mr. President, today, I have agreed to cosponsor telecommunications legislation introduced by Senator Stevens. I do so in a spirit of bipartisanship because I believe that bipartisanship will be required if we are to successfully update our Nation's communications laws. My cosponsorship, however, is not a demonstration of support for the bill itself.

This is the draft of the majority staff, and I have numerous, substantive objections to the bill in its current form. Given that my colleagues and I have not yet had an opportunity to weigh in on this critical legislation, I consider its introduction the very beginning of the legislative process.

Now that the majority staff's draft is no longer a secret, we can begin a full review of the bill and address the many issues important to me and my colleagues. At first glance, some provisions will need to be deleted or changed substantially and some issues still need to be addressed.

For example, we cannot ignore concerns about the potential for discrimination by network operators, but the draft appears to do just that by failing to create enforceable protections that will ensure network neutrality. Similarly, I believe that the provisions addressing video franchise reform must follow more closely the principles Senator Burns and I offered earlier this year. At a time of increasing consolidation in the communications industry, it is essential that we guarantee rights of interconnection, promote competition, and restrain anticompetitive behavior, particularly in markets where the Bell Companies continue to have significant market power. The legislation must promote the availability of affordable, broadband services and extend consumer protections on a competitively neutral basis.

Again, I recognize and honor the chairman's prerogative to set this legislative process into motion. The chairman is aware of my many concerns and has assured me that this will be a bipartisan process, and the Democrats will be at the table. I look forward to our discussions, and I am hopeful that we can develop a final product that everyone on our committee can support.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senators Menendez and Lautenberg's amendment to increase funding for port security. As the cochairman of the Commerce Committee and a Senator representing an island State, I place a particularly high priority on port security, and I know first hand that it is not receiving the resources that are necessary. Budgets are a reflection of priorities, and our budget must place far greater emphasis on this critical component of our national and economic security.

I feel compelled to remind this body that, since 2002, it has been given a litany of opportunities to bolster port security resources, and it has routinely rejected them.

As we consider this year's budget, I would like to recall the discussion we had around this time in 2003. During the budget debate, this body unanimously supported an amendment to provide $2 billion to port security. Yet 3 weeks later, when the Senate considered the supplemental appropriations legislation to address funding for the war in Iraq and homeland security, the Senate rejected the amendment that would have provided immediately the actual money for port security funding.

It was a lesson in cynicism that I have not forgotten.

Given the recent attention to the Nation's lingering, significant port security inadequacies, it is my hope that the Senate will have the wisdom to choose a different course this time around.

If there is one silver lining to the Dubai Ports World debacle, it is that the country is now paying close attention to port and cargo security. The heartland is learning what the coasts have known for many years: our national economy and physical security depend on strong port security. They are now familiar with the statistic that 95 percent of the Nation's cargo comes through the ports, and that very little of that cargo is inspected. The American public now knows that more needs to be done.

Maritime commerce is essential to the American economy. Many of our Nation's manufacturers and retailers depend on on-time delivery, and any disruption to the flow of commerce could have disastrous consequences for American businesses and the economy as a whole.

Despite this fact, the administration still fails to make port security a top priority. It has consistently submitted inadequate funding requests and has routinely missed critical security deadlines that were required by law. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, only recently submitted its National Maritime Transportation Security Plan. The report was due in April 2005.

Given the administration's poor record on port security and its poor judgment on the Dubai Ports World deal, I am left wondering what it will take for this administration to take port security seriously.

It was Congress that put a halt to the Dubai Ports World takeover, and it will have to be Congress that provides the port security funding that the administration's budget lacks. The amendment put forward by Senators Menendez and Lautenberg calls for a funding level that is a far better reflection of port security's importance to the country. While it will not solve all of the current inadequacies, it will bring us far closer to what will be required.

Several other Members will be introducing amendments that enhance resources for transportation security, and while I would prefer specific offsets, I applaud their focus on port security and strongly support them. Our committee has held numerous oversight hearings in the area of transportation security, and we recognize that much more needs to be done. The latest Department of Homeland Security inspector general's report indicated that the DHS has made considerable improvements in the administration of the port security grant program. It is beginning to deliver the funding the way Congress intended, consistent with the Maritime Transportation Security Act, MTSA. Now, we must dedicate more substantial resources to this effort.

While increased funding is a critical step, we must not lose sight of the long-term security improvements that will be necessary for port security. In November, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved the Transportation Security Improvement Act, S. 1052, which addresses a litany of security shortcomings across all modes of transportation. Specifically, title V of our bill tackles port and cargo security inadequacies. It improves the examination of cargo before it reaches our shores, ensures the resumption of commerce in the event of an attack, and takes greater advantage of coordinated, interagency port security efforts.

Of course, I would like to see passage of our full bill, but at a minimum, I urge the Senate to take up title V of our bill and pass it as soon as possible. Our approach has broad bipartisan support, and it will improve security while maintaining the jurisdiction and transportation expertise of the Commerce Committee. The time is right to pass these needed security improvements, and I am hopeful that the Senate will take up our measure as soon as possible.

In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support this important and timely amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an organization with which many of my colleagues have some personal familiarity, the Office of the Attending Physician. Many of my colleagues have come to rely upon the Attending Physician's Office here in the Congress as the source for support and medical advice. Most of us are personally aware of the fine work performed by Dr. Eisold and his staff in providing care for the Members of Congress, but there is much about the office which we don't think about regularly.

The Senate has been served by the Attending Physician since 1930, a little more than a year after the office was established by the House of Representatives. The first Attending Physician, Dr. George Calver, served this body for approximately 37 years. He was known for offering health tips to Members of Congress such as ``eat wisely, drink plentifully (of water). Play enthusiastically and relax completely. Stay out of the Washington social whirl--go out at night twice a week at most.'' And, perhaps most importantly. ``Don't let yourself get off- balance, nervous and disturbed over things.'' Each of these remains good advice all these years later.

My colleagues and I know we can count on the expertise of the Attending Physician in many areas of medical advice. On average, the office successfully treats more than 50,000 patients annually. They regularly track the spread of infectious disease so that they can determine which inoculations and other medications will be required when Members travel to foreign locations. Members of the Senate rely on the physician's office for our annual flu shots and for assistance on minor medical problems. We also count on them, as do our staff and visitors to the Capitol, for handling medical emergencies.

The Office of the Attending Physician also provides unique capabilities that are very important to the success of this institution which are not well known. The office is poised for crisis response. In recent years, it has responded to the anthrax outbreak in the Hart Building and to the ricin scare. The physicians, nurses, and other medical staff have the capability and training to respond to many potential emergencies up to and include terrorist response.

The office is equipped with mobile medical vehicles designed to allow for deploying medical support throughout the region, if necessary, for offsite operations. These vehicles are well equipped to handle many medical emergencies that could arise. Each has a fully functioning laboratory and two examination rooms complete with most modern equipment. As the Congress considers its continuity of Government requirements, the Office of the Attending Physician is well positioned to support emergency legislative operations which could be required following an attack.

Mr. President, the Office of the Attending Physician provides a critical capability to the legislative branch. The services they provide serve as a convenience to busy Members of the Congress, but they are much more. They are a vital piece of emergency response in the Capitol. They are ready, when called upon, to play a key role in ensuring continuity of the legislative branch, they serve to handle any medical emergency which might arise at the Capitol.

We owe a great deal to Dr. Eisold and his team of fine specialists. May I suggest all of my colleagues thank them for their great service the next time we

see them in action. They deserve our gratitude and support.