Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Medicaid Advanced Practice Nurse and Physician Assistants Access Act of 2005.'' This legislation would change Federal law to expand fee-for-service Medicaid to include direct payment for services provided by all nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants. It would ensure all nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants are recognized as primary care case managers, and require Medicaid panels to include advanced practice nurses on their managed care panels.

Advanced practice nurses are registered nurses who have attained additional expertise in the clinical management of health conditions. Typically, an advanced practice nurse holds a master's degree with didactic and clinical preparation beyond that of the registered nurse. They are employed in clinics, hospitals, and private practices. While there are many titles given to these advanced practice nurses, such as pediatric nurse practitioners, family nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and clinical nurse specialists, our current Medicaid law has not kept up with the multiple specialties and titles of these advanced practitioners, nor has it recognized the critical role physician assistants play in the delivery of primary care.

I have been a long-time advocate of advanced practice nurses and their ability to extend health care services to our most rural and underserved communities. They have improved access to health care in Hawaii and throughout the United States by their willingness to practice in what some providers might see as undesirable locations--the extremely rural, frontier, or urban areas. This legislation ensures they are recognized and reimbursed for providing the necessary health care services patients need, and it gives those patients the choice of selecting advanced practice nurses and physician assistants as their primary care providers.

In 1986, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment released a report requested by the Senate Appropriations Committee. This report, ``Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, and Certified Nurse Midwives: A Policy Analysis,'' found the quality of nurse practitioner care to be as good as or better than care provided by physicians. By passing this legislation, we honor the commitment of these frontline health care professionals by ensuring they receive the respect and reimbursement they have earned.

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

Mr. President, nearly 4 years have passed since the events of 9/11, yet rail and transit security remain major vulnerabilities.

The warning signs cannot be clearer. Public transportation and rail systems are a primary target for terrorist attacks. Last week's transit bombings in London follow similar attacks in Madrid, Moscow, Tel Aviv, and Seoul, and each attack has produced massive casualties, caused broad economic disruption, and generated widespread fear.

We have already been warned twice publicly by the FBI that al-Qaida may be directly targeting U.S. passenger trains and that their operatives may try to destroy key rail bridges and sections of track to cause derailments.

We know that more than one-third of all worldwide terrorist attacks target transportation systems, with public transit the most frequently targeted transportation mode.

Despite the significant threat to transit and rail systems and the Senate's unanimous approval of the Rail Security Act last year, security funding has remained grossly inadequate. As a result, our Nation's transit and rail systems have been unable to implement necessary security improvements.

I am pleased to join my colleagues this afternoon in supporting an amendment that increases rail security by $265 million in fiscal year 2006.

This funding level is not fictional. It is absolutely justifiable and necessary. Of the total amount proposed in our amendment, $65 million would be for Amtrak security, and Amtrak officials have verified they can obligate that funding amount in fiscal year 2006.

An additional $40 million would be for Amtrak tunnel safety, and Amtrak could obligate this funding in fiscal year 2006 for tunnels in New York, Baltimore, and the District of Columbia.

Of the total amount provided for by the amendment, $120 million would be for passenger and freight rail security grants, similar to the funding level authorized in S. 2273, the Rail Security Act of 2004, which the Senate passed unanimously last year.

Additionally, $35 million would be provided for rail security research and development. Again, the level is similar to the funding that the Senate has previously approved.

Finally, $5 million would be for a Transportation Security Administration, TSA, rail security risk assessment.

Just yesterday, Secretary Chertoff announced his plan to reorganize the Department of Homeland Security. He mentioned two points I would like to close with. First, he noted that increased preparedness should focus on not only risk and threat, but also consequences. We are all aware of the devastation that could result from a London-style attack on our transit and rail systems.

Second, he noted in his prepared materials that the TSA will continue to be the lead agency for intermodal transportation.

I couldn't agree with him more, and this amendment gives him the necessary funding to support his renewed focus on rail and transit security.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2005, legislation to reauthorize and update the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senator John Sununu, the new Chairman of the Commerce Committee's National Ocean Policy Study, who is also greatly concerned about the fate of coral reefs and the future well-being of our coastal regions and resources.

Coral reefs, often called the ``rainforests of the sea,'' are among the oldest and most diverse ecosystems on

the planet. Covering less than one percent of the Earth's surface, these fragile resources provide services worth billions of dollars each year to the United States economy and economies worldwide. Coral reef resources provide economic and environmental benefits in the form of food, jobs, natural products, pharmaceuticals, and shoreline protection. In Hawaii, reef-related activities generate $360 million each year for the State's economy, and the overall worth of our reefs has been estimated at close to $10 billion.

However, these reefs are also under pressure from some 1.2 million residents and the seven million tourists visiting each year. Threats range from land-based sources of pollution, overfishing, recreational overuse, alien species introduction, marine debris, coral bleaching and the increased acidity of our oceans. Despite these impacts, there are still remote coral reefs that are largely intact, such as those in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The continued conservation and study of these isolated reefs is necessary for understanding healthy coral reef ecosystems and restoring impacted ecosystems.

The reefs of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are an important nesting and breeding site for many endangered and threatened species. A Federal public designation process is underway to manage these areas as a National Marine Sanctuary, under a science-based management scheme that will accommodate multiple uses while achieving the necessary conservation goals. Increased funding and expanded Federal, State and local partnerships in this area have resulted in monitoring, mapping, and research programs have improved our understanding of the spatial and temporal dynamics of Hawaiian reefs which can be used to guide conservation and management decisions.

Through this reauthorization, we can build upon lessons learned in Hawaii and other areas and apply them throughout the United States. A mere five years ago, Congress took its first step toward addressing coral reef declines by authorizing legislation that provided targeted funding to advance our understanding and capacity to address threats to coral reefs. Since then, strong support for these programs around the country, as well as focused funding, have given us much information that will help us strengthen and refocus the legislation. The report of the U.S. Ocean Commission has further underscored the urgent need to improve management and conservation of coral reefs from a variety of threats. Our hearing on coral threats last month provided additional recommendations for changes to move from monitoring to action to improve coral conservation.

The Coral Reef Amendments Act of 2005 responds to these recommendations by increasing annual authorizations under the Coral Reef Conservation Act, starting at $30 million in fiscal year 2006, and increasing to $35 million in fiscal year 2009 to 2012. This roughly doubles the authorization levels in the existing act. It also gives priority attention to local action strategies and territorial needs, as well as on prevention of physical damage from vessel impacts. A new $8 million Community-Based Planning Grants program is included to encourage and enhance on-the-ground efforts to develop and implement coral management and protection plans, working through appropriate Federal and State management agencies. I am particularly pleased that this grant program will encourage adoption of traditional and island- based management approaches, many of which have a long history in the Pacific region.

The bill also fills a gap in authority needed for NOAA to respond to vessel groundings on coral reefs, damage that compounds over time if left unaddressed. Grounded vessels have remained on reefs, and have been a particular problem, when there is no viable owner or when the grounding occurs under circumstances that do not allow for response under authorities such as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act or the Oil Pollution Act. The July 2, 2005, grounding of the survey vessel CASITAS in the remote Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and the damage caused in American Samoa several years ago when a typhoon drove 9 abandoned fishing vessels onto reefs in Pago Pago harbor, highlight the vulnerability of coral reefs to groundings, and limitations of existing law and funding.

The bill responds to these needs by giving NOAA statutory authority to respond on an emergency basis to prevent or mitigate coral reef destruction from vessel or other physical impacts, including damage caused by natural disasters. The bill also authorizes NOAA to use Coral Reef Conservation Funds for these purposes, and encourages leveraging resources and assistance from other Federal agencies, as well as private sources. To assist in preventing future groundings, the bill authorizes NOAA to establish a vessel grounding inventory, identify reefs outside National Marine Sanctuaries that are at risk, and recommend measures that may be used to prevent future groundings, such as navigational aids or beacons to warn mariners.

Finally, the bill specifically directs NOAA to coordinate on the federal, state, and local levels to implement the U.S. National Coral Action Strategy.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I rise today in support of S. 362, the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, legislation I introduced with Senator Stevens, with the cosponsorship of Senators Cantwell, Snowe, Lautenberg, Kerry, Sarbanes, Akaka, and Murray.

This bill, which I am proud to say passed the Senate unanimously in the 108th Congress, focuses on one particular impact that goes unnoticed by many and has been largely ignored by the global community: marine debris. This problem is so important, and so pervasive, that it merited an entire chapter of the 2004 Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

While marine debris includes conventional ``trash,'' it also includes a vast array of additional materials that may find their way to sea, such as discarded or lost fishing gear, cargo washed overboard, and abandoned equipment from our commercial fleets. Marine debris is not only unsightly and dangerous to navigation, but it is also deadly to sea creatures, which may die entangled in a discarded fishing net or after ingesting plastic items such as lighters and toys.

While the problem is vast, it is also reversible when given sufficient emphasis, coordination, and funding. The bill being considered by the full Senate today aims to meet this challenge by adopting the measures recommended by both the Ocean Commission and the 2000 International Marine Debris Conference to help remove manmade marine debris from the list of ocean threats. The bill has strong support from the Bush administration, environmental groups, and others with an interest in the marine debris problem, including the Ocean Conservancy and the Northwest Straits Commission.

Specifically, our legislation would establish a Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, direct the U.S. Coast Guard to improve enforcement of laws designed to prevent ship-based pollution from plastics and other garbage, reinvigorate an interagency committee on marine debris, and improve our research and information on marine debris sources, threats, and prevention. The bill would authorize $10 million in funding for the NOAA program, and $5 million in funding for the Coast Guard program. I am pleased to say that congressional action last year provided $5 million in appropriated funding to NOAA specifically toward this problem, and the Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended increasing this amount to $6.4 million in fiscal year 2006. We challenge the administration to likewise increase funding for this initiative in coming years.

In Hawaii, the impacts of marine debris are more visible because of the convergence caused by the North Pacific Tropical High. Atmospheric forces cause ocean surface currents to converge on Hawaii, bringing with them the vast amount of debris floating throughout the Pacific. Since 1996, a total of 484 tons of debris have been removed from coral reefs in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which is also home to many endangered marine species. In 2004 alone, the program removed over 125 tons of debris. However, because more debris arrives daily, the job is far from done.

I am pleased that the coordinated approach taken to address the threats posed by marine debris in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands has provided a model for the nation. We have learned that our best path to success lies in partnering with one another to share resources, and it is my hope that others may adapt our project to their own shores through the partnership and funding opportunities set forth in this bill.

We must also bear in mind that no matter how zealously we reform our practices, the ultimate solution lies in international cooperation. The oceans connect the coastal nations of the world, and we must work together to reduce this increasing threat to our seas and shores. The Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act will provide the United States with the tools to develop effective marine debris prevention and removal programs on a worldwide basis, including reporting and information requirements that will assist in the creation of an international marine debris database.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting enactment of the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act. This bill will provide the United States with the programs and resources necessary to protect our most valuable resources, our oceans.

The committee amendment was agreed to.

I rise today in support of S. 39, the National Ocean Exploration Program Act. As a cosponsor of S. 39, I join my good friend Chairman, Stevens in supporting an enhanced national effort to explore our oceans, as was strongly recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The oceans cover nearly three-quarters of the Earth's surface and contain a diversity of life which greatly exceeds that found in terrestrial systems, and yet our oceans remain poorly understood. I therefore commend my friend, Chairman Stevens, for his initiative in this area and thank Senators Snowe, Dodd, Kerry, Lautenberg, Cantwell, and Reed for their support in cosponsoring this legislation.

Despite the importance of the oceans in human history, in regulating climate change, guaranteeing food security, providing energy resources, and enabling worldwide commerce, the U.S. spends only 3.5 percent of its research budget on ocean science, and far less on ocean exploration. Approximately 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored. It is hard to understand our inattention to this exciting area of research given the opportunity ocean exploration provides for discovering new habitats, species, artifacts, and resources. Ocean exploration expeditions can provide images of ancient human artifacts, rare or previously undiscovered species, and exciting new ecosystems. These images ignite the imagination of the general public and engage them in marine science and conservation.

This bill is a reflection of Senator Stevens' and my long history of working together to increase the funding for ocean exploration, as well as to secure a dedicated vessel to conduct these activities in U.S. waters and worldwide. To accomplish these goals our bill would establish a national ocean exploration program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that, in coordination with the National Science Foundation, would conduct interdisciplinary ocean exploration voyages and give priority attention to deep ocean regions.

To facilitate the aims of the exploration program, the bill would also establish a Federal exploration technology and infrastructure task force. This task force would be charged with strengthening interagency coordination for the purposes of developing and

facilitating the transfer of new exploration technologies, communication infrastructure and data management systems to the exploration program. Long-term funding levels are also dedicated for ocean exploration in the bill.

I hope that my colleagues will work with us today to ensure the swift passage of the National Ocean Exploration Program Act.

Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 50, the Tsunami Preparedness Act, which Senator Stevens and I introduced in January 2004, and which is now being considered by the full Senate. We are joined by 24 of our friends and colleagues as cosponsors, including Senators Cantwell, Burns, Lautenberg, Snowe, Akaka, Murkowski, Clinton, Smith, Murray, Lieberman, Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Kerry, Chambliss, Wyden, Dayton, Boxer, Feinstein, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Corzine, Lott, Gregg, and Ben Nelson.

This bill, which the Commerce Committee unanimously approved in March, provides a scientific and technological response to minimize the threats posed by tsunami to our own shores and coastal communities around the world. While we have had limited observation and detection capabilities dating back to 1949, we must have a more robust, reliable, and well-maintained tsunami warning system. The appalling scope of the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, 2004 made clear the need and the urgency to develop more advanced detection capabilities.

Our legislation builds on our previous work and will establish a warning system in the Pacific that is a model for the world. It also provides for expansion and improvement to repair gaps that have been identified recently.

Protecting human life and property from natural disaster requires three components: the ability to reliably detect and forecast, the capacity to broadcast warnings in a timely and informative manner, and the capability to respond and safely evacuate coastal communities. Above all, however, it requires the willingness to invest resources to prepare for a threat that is largely unseen and unpredictable, until the last moment, when a monstrous wave actually strikes.

The people of Alaska and Hawaii have long memories and a keen awareness of the threat of tsunami. Perhaps it is because Hawaii sits in a position of terrible vulnerability in the Pacific Ocean, which is the site of 85 percent of the world's tsunami activity, and because Alaska, perched on the northern edge of the Pacific's Ring of Fire, suffers frequent tsunami-generating earthquakes. Yet we are not the only States at risk from tsunami. There is a 14 percent chance that the coast of Oregon will, within the next 50 years, see a tsunami similar in magnitude to the one that recently took so many lives in the Indian Ocean. A recent study by the University of Southern California found that undersea slumping off the California coast could generate a tsunami with the potential to take many thousands of lives and cause over $40 billion in damages.

In order to protect local communities, Hawaii established in 1949 a tsunami warning center, following a tragic Hilo tsunami. In response to the Good Friday earthquake and tsunami of 1964, which accounted for 90 percent of the deaths in the State that year, Alaska established an observatory in Palmer, AK, in 1967. Collaborations between the two centers and other partners led to a nascent capacity for predicting and warning coastal communities about potential tsunami in Alaska and Hawaii and beyond.

As we came to understand the broader threat that tsunami posed, Ted Stevens and I worked together to pass legislation in 1994 to direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to develop a Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. We are pleased to report that the program has laid the foundation for tsunami preparedness.

Through its Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, PMEL, NOAA has developed Deep Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tunami--or ``DART''-- buoys, which accurately measure the subtle variations in the ocean's sea level caused by tsunami traveling over open water. With these measurements, as well as readings from coastal gauges, mathematical models can forecast tsunami direction, speed, and inundation with astonishing accuracy. Although the worldwide network of seismic sensors operated by the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, provides excellent notice of earthquakes with the potential to generate tsunami, the DART buoys represent a next-generation approach to detection and forecasting of tsunami that will form the backbone of our domestic preparedness.

Interpreting these data and issuing warnings are Hawaii's Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, and Alaska's West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center, which jointly have the capacity to cover our domestic shores, and, at the same time, to reach out to all cooperating nations of the world.

Forecasting and warning networks, however, depend on ears who know how to respond, and so the Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program has partnered with States and local authorities to produce inundation mapping, develop evacuation routes, and conduct tsunami education. As a result of much hard work, 15 counties along the West Coast and in Alaska and Hawaii have become national and world leaders by becoming ``tsunami ready.''

The appalling scope of the Indian Ocean tragedy illustrates the importance and necessity of our work of the past 10 years, and with stark clarity, we can see that despite our best efforts, much remains to be done. Now, as before, Senator Stevens and I have come together to lead the charge toward national and international tsunami preparedness.

The bill formally authorizes NOAA to establish, operate, and maintain a dependable national tsunami warning system that would provide maximum tsunami detection capability for the Nation. The system would build on the model established in the Pacific, and provide for its repair, expansion and modernization by the close of calendar year 2007. The system would include four components: an expanded and upgraded detection and warning system, a Federal-State tsunami hazard mitigation program, a tsunami research program, and a modernization and upgrade program. In addition, S. 50 would direct NOAA to provide any necessary technical or other assistance to international efforts to establish regional systems in other parts of the world, including the Indian Ocean.

The detection and warning system established by the bill would cover the Pacific Ocean region, as well as the Atlantic-Caribbean-Gulf of Mexico region. The system would incorporate a variety of seismic and tsunami detection technologies, including deep ocean buoys. The system also would encompass tsunami warning centers charged with collecting and analyzing the data and distributing warnings, including the existing Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii and the West Coast/ Alaska Tsunami Warning Center in Alaska, as well as any others deemed necessary by the NOAA Administrator.

The bill formally authorizes NOAA's Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program and its community-based tsunami hazard mitigation program to improve tsunami preparedness of at-risk areas. The bill directs a Federal-State coordinating committee for the program to work together to improve inundation mapping, community outreach and education, and promote and integrate tsunami warning and mitigation measures, including rescue and recovery

guidelines. The program would provide grants to States to ensure the program elements are implemented in coastal communities.

The bill requires NOAA to establish, along with other agencies and academic institutions, a tsunami research program to continuously improve detection, prediction, communication, and mitigation science and technology to support tsunami forecasts and warnings. This program would also focus on the potential for improved communications systems for tsunami and other hazard warnings, including telephones, wireless and satellite technology, the Internet, television and radio, and any innovative combination of these technologies.

Another critical component of the bill requires NOAA to upgrade and modernize the U.S. tsunami detection system by December 2007, and provide accountability for the long-term operation of the system. NOAA is required to repair and upgrade the system, ensuring deployment of existing deep ocean detection buoys and related detection equipment, as well as notify Congress immediately not only of any equipment or system failures that will impair regional detection, but also of significant contractor failures or delays. In addition, the bill calls for the National Academy of Sciences to review the system for further modernization recommendations.

One of the changes we made to the bill resulted from testimony at the committee's February 2, 2005, hearing, and focuses on improving warning and preparedness for all coastal hazards, not only tsunami. The bill now contains a Coastal Community Vulnerability and Adaptation program at NOAA would encourage collaboration among Federal, State, local, and regional efforts through pilot projects focusing on: No. 1, development of vulnerability maps for coastal communities to a wide array of potential hazards; No. 2, better integration of risk management with community planning; No. 3, rick management leadership training for public officials; No. 4, development of risk assessment technologies; No. 5, new data services to support the new risk management activities; and No. 6, new risk communication systems. The bill would authorize $5 million annually for fiscal year 2006-2012 for the program.

The bill also recognizes the need for global coordination on tsunami preparedness, and as such, requires NOAA, and the interagency coordinating committee of the U.S. Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, to provide technical assistance and advice to international entities as part of an international effort to develop a fully functional global tsunami warning system. The bill would also encourage nations to share information and funding for such activities.

Finally, the bill authorizes $35 million annually for 6 years to support tsnunami related activities. Through this legislation, the work Senator Stevens and I started over ten years ago will step up to the next level, and provide our Nation with coverage and protection that it needs, while fulfilling our duties as citizens of the global community.

I believe that this bill will provide services of incalculable value to our Nation. The return on our investment may not happen this day or the next but it will happen. I hope that you will join me and my cosponsors in supporting enactment of the Tsunami Preparedness Act.

I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Domenici, in a brief colloquy on the subject of the State Technologies Advancement Collaborative, commonly called STAC, a program in the energy efficiency portion of the Department of Energy appropriation.

The STAC program is a collaboration among two State organizations and the Department of Energy, initiated by an agreement among the parties in November of 2003. The program was to be a 5-year pilot of a joint planning process between the States and the Department, resulting in projects that were multistate collaborations across the country, of interest to both States and the Federal Government, and cost-shared by the State at no less than 50 percent To date the program has had two competitive solicitations for projects, resulting in almost $24 million in buildings, industry, transportation, distributed generation and fossil energy activities, with over $12 million of that amount being provided by the States. These projects involve 36 different States.

I am aware that the energy legislation does that, and I thank the chairman for including such support in the Energy bill. Despite the support of Congress for this program in the past, and in the Energy bill, no funds are provided for the program in the Energy and Water appropriation now before us. This highly leveraged, efficiently managed program, with wide participation from the States, will not continue, even with the language included in the Energy bill, without strong support from the appropriations process. Would the chairman consider including such support for the program in the conference agreement on the Energy and Water appropriations bill by directing the Department to provide funds out of its regular programs at the level no less than the level Congress supported in the fiscal year 2005 appropriation for the program?

I thank the chairman for his consideration and for his support of programs important to the States.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two amendments that I filed concerning the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydro relicensing process and its impact on Indian tribes.

The two amendments were simple amendments that I had hoped to have included in a managers' package.

As presently drafted, section 261 will authorize license applicants to have veto authority over the Secretary's decision on whether to accept alternative conditions. This will have substantial adverse effects on Indian reservations that are occupied by hydroelectric project facilities as well as fishery resources that the United States holds in trust for Indian tribes.

The Federal Government has an obligation, a trust responsibility, to protect the resources and related property rights in them that we hold in trust for Indian tribes.

A cornerstone of Federal Indian policy regarding tribal natural resources is that development of them will not occur without the consent of the tribe for which the United States holds the resources in trust.

By injecting the judgment of a hydroelectric dam operator--whose interests may well be adverse to a tribe's--to override the Secretary's determination of the Federal trust responsibility for tribal resources affected by a license application seems to me to be a clear violation of our trust responsibility. In certain cases this could result in an applicant having a virtual veto over conditions relating to the protection of Indian lands and resources.

Congress acted to create reservations to fulfill solemn obligations to Indian tribes and vested in the Secretary the special responsibility to be the repository of expertise in the management and protection of those reservations as well as fisheries in which many tribes reserved rights in their treaties with the United States--treaties that were ratified by this Senate.

The tribal land and fishery resources that would be adversely affected by section 261 are vested property rights that the United States holds in trust. There is no justification for subordinating those rights to the activities and interests of a licensee in the manner provided for in this legislation.

The Federal Government has continuously broken its promises to Indian tribes. Over the past 60 years or so, this has cost us, and the taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more for breaking those promises. And we continue to face additional liability in the billions of dollars for breaking other promises and violating our trust responsibility. This has got to stop.

Justice Black once wrote at another critical juncture in the history of the Federal Power Act's relationship to tribal property rights: ``Great nations, like great men, should keep their word.''

Although I am disappointed that we may once again be violating our solemn obligation to the Indian tribes who have contributed so much to our great country, I note that Senator Domenici has assured me that he will continue to look at this matter.

I call on my colleagues in the conference of this legislation to work to ensure revision of the language that is antithetical to tribal rights and longstanding Federal Indian policy.

Mr. President, according to press reports last evening one of the principal advisors to the President, Mr. Karl Rove, criticized Democrats for failing to respond to the attacks on 9/11. He is reported to have said that the Democratic Party did not understand the consequences of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He is quoted saying, ``Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers, Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.''

Oftentimes in press reports, words are taken out of context or simply misquoted. I would hope that is the case here. I would hope that the views that were reported to have been expressed do not really represent the thoughts of Mr. Rove and certainly not the President of the United States.

It is not often that I come to the floor to question what someone might have said. My view is that most of the time it is better to just remain silent and not to dignify the remarks which might have been made in the heat of partisan rhetoric, but this is a bit different.

All of us who were in the Congress at that time recall 9/11 vividly. Like all Americans we saw the jet liners crash into the Twin Towers on our televisions and we could all see the smoke rising from the Pentagon just across the river.

Perhaps Mr. Rove forgets what that day was like as we evacuated our offices and tried to maintain an aura of calm for the American public. Perhaps he forgets the spontaneous action of many of my colleagues who gathered on the steps of the Capitol to sing ``God Bless America.'' It wasn't Republicans on the steps and it wasn't conservatives, it was Americans. All colors, all religions, both parties came together in a patriotic symbol to demonstrate the resolve of America.

Mr. Rove must also not remember that the Senate was in the hands of a Democratic majority in September 2001. It was the Democratic majority, acting with the Republican minority, which pushed through a resolution authorizing the use of force to go after Osama Bin Laden. There was no dispute between the parties on this issue. We all agreed that we had to defeat this enemy of America.

I was Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee at that time. I worked with my colleague Ted Stevens to put together an emergency appropriations bill to support the Defense Department's requirements to mount an attack on the terrorists. It was a bipartisan plan that provided the administration wide latitude to respond to this tragedy. There was no dissent. We were united across party lines.

Perhaps Mr. Rove just forgets. I cannot forget visiting the Pentagon and examining the extent of the damage and the continuing rescue efforts with my colleague Senator Stevens. I vividly recall flying to New York City one week later to tour the site of the disaster. I will never forget the acrid smell that still arose through the smoke from the site as we flew over the area in a helicopter. I will forever recall seeing the widows of lost firefighters being escorted, and literally held up, by other New York emergency workers as they visited the site.

It has not been often in our Nation's history that we have been tested. As a teenager I was present on December 7, 1941 at another time in our Nation's history when we suffered a savage attack.

At the time the Nation responded in a bipartisan fashion to respond to that awful attack. Our response to the 9/11 attack was similar. All Americans were outraged by the attack and we proved our resolve to respond. To claim that one party had a monopoly on a patriotic response or a will to act is not only factually in error it is an insult to all Americans.

I have been in politics for many years. I understand the use of partisan political rhetoric to play to an audience. I also know that in this era of instantaneous information, erroneous statements can become accepted as facts. This statement, if it truly reflects the views of the President's advisor, needs to be refuted before it can be thought of as being historically accurate.

There has been a lot said in the press recently about demanding apologies for words that have been spoken. The White House needs to take a look at these statements and consider an appropriate response to repudiate these words.

Patriotism is not owned by one political party. Our national resolve is not Democratic or Republican. It is American.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a great American and a true military heroine who has honorably served our country for over 30 years in the U.S. Air Force Nurse Corps: MG Barbara C. Brannon. Major General Brannon began her career as a staff nurse in the Intensive and Coronary Care Unit at Malcolm Grow Medical Center, Andrews Air Force Base, MD, and subsequently served throughout the world in Nebraska, California, Texas, Florida, Alabama, England, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Italy, and the District of Columbia.

In each assignment, General Brannon excelled and overcame every challenge, accompanied by reward with greater responsibilities and opportunities. An expert educator and clinician, she assumed instructor and coordinator positions at the School of Health Care Sciences and in aeromedical evacuation, and served as assistant chief nurse, quality assurance coordinator, and director of ambulatory services at Tyndall AFB, FL. Serving as a nurse executive management fellow at Air University Regional Hospital, Maxwell AFB, AL, prepared her to lead the 7520th Air Base Squadron Medical Aid Station in Wycombe, England. Another unmatched performance led to her competitive selection as the nursing executive management fellow for the Office of the Surgeon, Strategic Air Command, Offutt AFB, NE, and was followed by her selection as the chief nurse executive, 90th Medical Group, Francis E. Warren AFB, WY.

Below-the-zone promotions to both lieutenant colonel and colonel illuminated her path to command the 382nd Technical Training Squadron, Sheppard AFB, TX, the 71st Medical Group, Vance AFB, OK and the 31st Medical Group, Aviano Air Base, Italy. She was later appointed as the director, Air Force Medical Readiness and Nursing Services, Office of the Surgeon General, Bolling AFB, DC. Serving briefly in this capacity, she returned to Andrews AFB where she became the first Nurse Corps officer to command the 89th Medical Group, concurrently served as the Assistant Air Force Surgeon General for Nursing, and became the first Air Force nurse promoted to major general in 2003.

Her career culminates in a dual role as Assistant Air Force Surgeon General, Medical Force Development and Assistant Air Force Surgeon General for Nursing, through which she established and appraised personnel policy and force development actions for over 40,000 active duty officer, enlisted, and civilian medical personnel. I extend my deepest appreciation to Major General Brannon for her 30-plus years of dedicated military service and offer her my congratulations on a phenomenal and inspirational career.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to cosponsor this legislation, the ``Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Maintenance Act'', with my friend and Commerce Committee Chairman, Ted Stevens, as well as my other Senate colleagues. As most people know, after the terrible incident involving the Exxon Valdez, Senator Stevens championed the passage of the Oil

Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90, as well as the mechanism for providing funding for the cleanup of oil spills.

That mechanism, known as the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, is now in danger. In a recent report to Congress, the United States Coast Guard predicted that the Fund will run out of money before 2009. Given the recent spate of costly spills around the country, it may run out sooner. We simply cannot allow this to happen. The fund provides a critically important safety net. It aids the cleanup of oil spills and provides compensation to those harmed, particularly where no responsible party is identified or the responsible parties have insufficient resources.

Since the passage of OPA 90, we have significantly reduced the number and volume of oil spills in the U.S. Unfortunately, thousands of gallons of oil continue to be spilled into our waters every year, and the cost of cleanup has increased substantially. The amount of oil carried by tank vessels to and within the U.S. is predicted to increase. While we pray that we will never have another major oil spill, we must be ready to respond if necessary.

The bill introduced today would reinstate an expired fee on oil companies of 5 cents per barrel of oil. The fee, which ceased January 1, 1995, would increase the maximum principal amount of the fund from $1 billion to $3 billion, and if the fund drops below $2 billion, the fee would automatically be reinstated without the need for additional legislative action. Five cents a barrel translates to approximately $0.0011 per gallon of gas--or one eighth of one cent--and is worth about 3 cents per barrel in 1990 dollars. This is substantially less than the original rate of 5 cents.

I urge my Senate colleagues to take up this issue and pass this legislation without delay.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2005, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

The James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge is the premier endangered Hawaiian waterbird recovery area in the northern portion of the Island of Oahu. It supports all four endangered Hawaiian waterbirds and a variety of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl. The expansion of James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge under my bill would provide for wildlife and habitat protection, and would also resolve issues associated with the hydrology of the Kahuku floodplain.

The expansion would restore historical wetland habitat and form the largest managed freshwater wetland on Oahu. It would connect the two existing units of the Refuge and create a protected flyway between them to provide essential habitat for four endangered waterbird species and migratory waterbirds. It would also protect the last remaining large scale coastal dune ecosystem on Oahu and preserve native strand plants and protect coastal wildlife such as threatened green sea turtles, seabirds, migratory shorebirds, and possibly the endangered Hawaiian monk seal. Support facilities could be constructed on upland areas to support environmental education and interpetation programs, visitor services, and habitat management programs. All land proposed for the expansion is owned by the Estate of James Campbell, a willing seller.

Heavy floods occur frequently in this area, devastating residents who live in the adjacent town of Kahuku. Because of the location and natural function of this historical floodplain, the land acquisition also serves as the crucial component for the proposed Kahuku flood control project by increasing the capacity of the area to drain and preserving the floodwater retention of these wetlands.

This habitat restoration proposal represents the most significant wetland enhancement project ever undertaken in Hawaii. By combining effective flood control, wetland development, endangered species conservation,

environmental education, and visitor opportunities, benefits provided will serve not only the local communities, but also Hawaii residents and visitors for generations to come.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this non- controversial legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2005, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

The James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge is the premier endangered Hawaiian waterbird recovery area in the northern portion of the Island of Oahu. It supports all four endangered Hawaiian waterbirds and a variety of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl. The expansion of James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge under my bill would provide for wildlife and habitat protection, and would also resolve issues associated with the hydrology of the Kahuku floodplain.

The expansion would restore historical wetland habitat and form the largest managed freshwater wetland on Oahu. It would connect the two existing units of the Refuge and create a protected flyway between them to provide essential habitat for four endangered waterbird species and migratory waterbirds. It would also protect the last remaining large scale coastal dune ecosystem on Oahu and preserve native strand plants and protect coastal wildlife such as threatened green sea turtles, seabirds, migratory shorebirds, and possibly the endangered Hawaiian monk seal. Support facilities could be constructed on upland areas to support environmental education and interpetation programs, visitor services, and habitat management programs. All land proposed for the expansion is owned by the Estate of James Campbell, a willing seller.

Heavy floods occur frequently in this area, devastating residents who live in the adjacent town of Kahuku. Because of the location and natural function of this historical floodplain, the land acquisition also serves as the crucial component for the proposed Kahuku flood control project by increasing the capacity of the area to drain and preserving the floodwater retention of these wetlands.

This habitat restoration proposal represents the most significant wetland enhancement project ever undertaken in Hawaii. By combining effective flood control, wetland development, endangered species conservation,

environmental education, and visitor opportunities, benefits provided will serve not only the local communities, but also Hawaii residents and visitors for generations to come.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this non- controversial legislation.

These protections are needed because, while the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, assumed the regulatory duties for the household goods moving industry previously entrusted to the Interstate Commerce Commission, inadequate Federal statutory protections and limited resources have meant that the interstate moving industry has essentially gone without oversight. FMCSA has received nearly 20,000 consumer complaints since January 2001, and yet until recently has had only one or two employees dedicated to household goods regulation and enforcement for the entire nation.

Yes, we understand that both Senators have a very strong interest in these provisions, and while I have concerns with the changes that

Senator Bond is proposing which I believe could significantly limit the authority of our State attorneys general in assisting the Federal Government in enforcing these new protections for moving company consumers, we are prepared to accept this language and make a commitment to work with both Senators to improve their provisions moving forward.

I want to thank both Senators for their cooperation on these matters. Senator Bond raises a good point regarding the definition and we understand that this is a complex issue which will require further work by all involved.

I agree with the chairman, and I say to the Senator from California that you have my commitment to look into this issue as we hopefully proceed with this bill through conference. That will be the appropriate time to bring this additional matter to the table.

Mr. President, I rise as a leading co-sponsor of the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005 introduced today by my colleague and Chairman, Ted Stevens, along with Senators Jay Rockefeller, Olympia Snowe, Frank Lautenberg, Byron Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Mark Pryor, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer.

Nearly 4 years after the enactment of landmark aviation and maritime security laws, it is time to build upon that foundation, make needed improvements and enhancements to our transportation security efforts across all modes, and reestablish the requisite funding levels. Most importantly, we must restore the sense of urgency that is essential if we are to keep our transportation systems, and our economy, strong, vibrant, and secure. We have worked hard to develop this legislation, and we will continue to improve it with the assistance of committee members and the Department of Homeland Security as we move forward through the legislative process.

Over the past 3\1/2\ years, the administration and Congress have slowly lost the sense of immediacy that once allowed us to recognize that transportation security is a matter of national security. The administration's budget and priorities indicate that they are overlooking glaring security vulnerabilities, disregarding the continuing threats and risks that are reported almost daily, and underestimating the economic consequences that would undoubtedly result from another attack on our transportation systems. I am hopeful that the new leadership will reinvigorate transportation security.

The economic importance of those systems can hardly be overstated: 95 percent of the Nation's cargo comes through the ports; our rail system and our motor carriers move all of those goods from our coasts and borders throughout the interior U.S. to retail outlets and manufacturers that rely on on-time delivery; our aviation system carried 629.7 million domestic passengers during 2004 and averaged 1.5 million enplanements per day in January this year; approximately 24 million passengers ride Amtrak annually, and there are nearly 3.4 billion passenger and commuter rail trips in this country each year. The loss of our aviation system for just 4 days after the September 11th attacks sent shockwaves through the economy that are still being felt today. The al Qaida attack on the passenger trains in Madrid, Spain, killing nearly 200 people and injuring 1,800, unfortunately proved that railroads are vulnerable targets for terrorists. If there is an incident at any one seaport, the whole system for moving cargo into and out of the country would screech to a halt, as we scramble to ensure security at other ports. In addition to the horrible loss of life, the resulting economic damage would be widespread, catastrophic and possibly irreversible. We cannot afford to risk this kind of damage due to a lack of preparedness and forethought.

The terrorists that seek to do us harm are cunning, dynamic, and most of all, patient. While they have not successfully struck our homeland since September 11, 2001, it does not mean that they are not preparing to do so. They work 24 hours a day, studying what we do and how we do it. It is imperative that we stay ahead of them. That means we must constantly anticipate, innovate, and plan. We must continually research and implement the most effective technologies. We must recruit, train and deploy the most skilled security force. Simply put, our entire economy relies on a well-functioning, secure, transportation system. It is in our greatest economic interest to ensure that this system, and the passengers and cargo that use it, are well protected. And, in keeping with transportation security's impact on the nation's physical and economic security, it is the responsibility of the federal government to properly finance that protection.

Following passage of our new aviation security laws, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, was assembled quickly, presented with an enormous task, and expected to produce immediate results. It has performed admirably, despite the administration's near- constant reorganization of the agency with little to no input from Congress. While we take seriously recent reports about financial mismanagement and the limits of the human capacity to detect security breaches, we cannot and must not use these inadequacies as justification to cast aside the critical work of this agency. There are some in Congress that have never been comfortable with the new Federal role in transportation security, and they look to every negative report to help usher in a return to private security screening companies. We contend, however, that transportation security must not be judged only by the bottom-line commercial pressures of the private sector. Transportation security is a unique national security function and an economic necessity, and like our national defense, it must remain a primary responsibility of the federal government.

The need for Congressional action to secure all forms of transportation infrastructure across the country remains essential, and I, along with many of my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee, have expressed great reservations about the direction our Nation is now headed on matters of transportation security.

As I noted during the Senate's consideration of the nomination of Michael Chertoff to be the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the administration's budget demonstrates the lost sense of urgency. It shifts critical work away from the TSA. It erodes the Agency's limited focus and accountability. It undermines the effectiveness of our maritime and land security efforts. It underfunds efforts across all modes, but particularly port and rail.

The legislation we are introducing today renews the importance and commitment transportation security deserves. It identifies the numerous, lingering shortcomings that currently exist, re-dedicates our efforts on maritime and surface transportation security, and provides the guidance necessary to adequately defend the nation's infrastructure.

The TSA should not focus almost exclusively on aviation, nor should it be transformed into a glorified, security screener training and placement agency. The TSA is essential, and it possesses critical expertise that must be cultivated and put to proper use. We believe that the TSA, as outlined by our bill, can and will be the difference between a flourishing economy fueled by smooth-running transportation systems and an economy crippled by transportation systems that could fall victim to terrorist attacks.

As such, the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005 will authorize the TSA for the next 3 fiscal years and re-dedicate the agency to its mission of providing specialized security for all modes of transportation. It provides further direction to the agency's cargo security functions, strengthens aviation, maritime, rail, hazardous materials, and pipeline security efforts, and enhances interagency cooperation. While the proposal incorporates several Commerce Committee and Senate-passed bills or initiatives from the prior Congress, it also puts forth new ideas to enhance transportation security across all modes.

We recognize that Secretary Chertoff has had only a short time to make changes and that his comprehensive review is pending. Our legislation provides the flexibility necessary to address his findings and prerogatives. However, it is incumbent upon Congress to provide guidance and clarify the expectations.

On the matter of port security, our legislation seeks to improve interagency cooperation with the further development of joint operation command centers. It clarifies the roles and responsibilities for cargo security programs, while establishing criteria for contingency response plans to resume the flow of commerce in the event of a seaport attack. By setting a minimum floor for research and development funding related to maritime and land security, the bill further encourages the development of effective technologies that detect terrorist threats. Conversely, the administration has

continued to consolidate critical infrastructure grant programs, which we believe will effectively decrease funding for port security and eliminate the appropriate expertise necessary to review grant proposals and distribute the funds accordingly.

In addressing aviation security, we continue to be concerned that current budget proposals diminish the TSA's authority and squander its expertise. Airport directors are still struggling to receive the technological and capital improvements that would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the current security system and lower costs considerably. Instead of addressing these shortcomings with aggressive support, the administration has chosen to place a greater burden on the airlines through increased security fees at the same moment that the carriers are facing the most difficult financial period in their history. Not only has the industry lost more than $30 billion cumulatively since 2000, the Federal government has had to bail out the carriers twice. Increasing the carriers' financial burden is ill conceived and counterproductive.

Quietly but consistently, we also hear of some of our colleagues' desire to return to the same privatized security apparatus that proved disastrously inadequate on September 11, 2001. These efforts are short- sighted, defy our experience, and will reverse much of the progress we have made since September 11. Those seeking to return to the old system, at times, claim that the system is no better than pre-September 11. We all know that is not the case. We also know that with new technology, we can improve screener performance. There is no doubt that human factors limit the capabilities of screeners, but as we fund and deploy new equipment, the security system will continue to improve. Our bill seeks to enhance the current screener workforce by directing a more appropriate use of the TSA's resources and through improved training. It would also stimulate efforts to streamline and improve collections of existing airline and passenger security fees to promote a more efficient and healthy aviation industry.

On rail security, our legislation will incorporate an updated version of the Rail Security Act of 2004, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent last year. It features new efforts to ensure the security of hazardous materials that are shipped by rail and improves security training and awareness for our railroad workers and the public. The tragic events in Madrid, Spain, demonstrated to all of us the clear threats to our rail system. We have already been warned publicly twice by the FBI that al Qaida may be directly targeting U.S. passenger trains and that their operatives may try to destroy key rail bridges and sections of track to cause derailments. The rail threat assessment required by our legislation and the grant programs and other measures designed to respond to those threats will strengthen our ability to address them. Until we pass a rail security package, this body is failing its responsibility to try to secure our national transportation system. We owe it to the American people to strengthen the security of our passenger and freight railroads.

To address the security needs of our other surface transportation modes, the proposal will include funding to improve intercity bus security, strengthen hazardous material transportation security efforts, establish new security guidelines for truck rental and leasing operations, and develop pipeline security incident recovery plans. Such action is long overdue as the administration has consistently failed to develop dedicated programs, much less financial support, for rail and other surface transportation security efforts.

We have reached a critical juncture for transportation security in the United States and the steps that we take in the coming months will impact our safety, security and one of our most essential freedoms-- movement--for years to come. We must commit ourselves to ensuring that our transportation security remains a priority and is as strong and effective as possible. I believe the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005 will continue to move us in that direction.