Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reauthorize Title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act. Title VIII provides authority for the appropriation of funds for the construction of low-income housing for Native Hawaiians and further provides authority for access to loan guarantees

associated with the construction of housing to serve Native Hawaiians.

Three studies have documented the acute housing needs of Native Hawaiians--which include the highest rates of overcrowding and homelessness in the State of Hawaii. Those same studies indicate that inadequate housing rates for Native Hawaiians are amongst the highest in the Nation.

The reauthorization of Title VIII will support the continuation of efforts to assure that the native people of Hawaii may one day have access to housing opportunities that are comparable to those now enjoyed by other Americans.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native American Connectivity Act. Senator Cantwell joins me in sponsoring this measure.

Over 70 years ago, we passed the Communications Act of 1934 and committed ``to make available . . . to all the people of the United States . . . a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges. . . .'' It is now 2005, and the Federal Government has yet to fulfill this commitment in Indian country.

Relying on 2000 Census data, the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, estimates that, on average, only 67.9 percent of Indian households located on Indian reservations have telephone service compared to a national average of 95 percent. Even more alarming is that household telephone rates for some tribes, such as the Kickapoo Reservation in Texas and the Navajo Nation, are as low as 33 percent and 38 percent, respectively. Available data also shows that many Native Americans lack access not only to basic telephone service but also to advanced telecommunications services and information technology.

As a result, many Native Americans lack access to emergency 911 services, are unable to secure employment because they do not have telephone service or Internet, and cannot otherwise participate in many daily activities that non-Native Americans take for granted. Moreover, the lack of telecommunications infrastructure impedes the economic development of tribal communities, educational opportunities, language retention and preservation, and access to adequate health care.

Tribal governments and their citizens must have access to the necessary resources to develop their telecommunications capacities. A recent report by the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development credited tribal self-governance for improvements in socioeconomic growth at rates that far exceed progress being made nationally. This bill will provide the resources necessary to enhance and strengthen tribal self-determination to address telecommunications needs. As a result, tribal governments should be able to make further gains in socioeconomic conditions.

I urge my colleagues to give their favorable consideration to this measure.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native American Connectivity Act. Senator Cantwell joins me in sponsoring this measure.

Over 70 years ago, we passed the Communications Act of 1934 and committed ``to make available . . . to all the people of the United States . . . a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges. . . .'' It is now 2005, and the Federal Government has yet to fulfill this commitment in Indian country.

Relying on 2000 Census data, the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, estimates that, on average, only 67.9 percent of Indian households located on Indian reservations have telephone service compared to a national average of 95 percent. Even more alarming is that household telephone rates for some tribes, such as the Kickapoo Reservation in Texas and the Navajo Nation, are as low as 33 percent and 38 percent, respectively. Available data also shows that many Native Americans lack access not only to basic telephone service but also to advanced telecommunications services and information technology.

As a result, many Native Americans lack access to emergency 911 services, are unable to secure employment because they do not have telephone service or Internet, and cannot otherwise participate in many daily activities that non-Native Americans take for granted. Moreover, the lack of telecommunications infrastructure impedes the economic development of tribal communities, educational opportunities, language retention and preservation, and access to adequate health care.

Tribal governments and their citizens must have access to the necessary resources to develop their telecommunications capacities. A recent report by the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development credited tribal self-governance for improvements in socioeconomic growth at rates that far exceed progress being made nationally. This bill will provide the resources necessary to enhance and strengthen tribal self-determination to address telecommunications needs. As a result, tribal governments should be able to make further gains in socioeconomic conditions.

I urge my colleagues to give their favorable consideration to this measure.

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

Mr. President, on February, 14, 2005, one of our greatest Americans, Frederick Douglass, was honored at a celebration at the historic Ford's Theatre that was sponsored by the Caring Institute and the National Park Service. These two organizations play major roles in ensuring that the life and legacy of Mr. Douglass are not forgotten-- the Institute through its establishment of The Frederick Douglass Museum and the Hall of Fame for Caring Americans on Capitol Hill, and the National Park Service through its management of the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site at Cedar Hill in Anacostia. As you know, Cedar Hill was his home in Washington, DC.

Frederick Douglass was one of the most important intellectual voices in American life in the 19th century. He was a forceful and persuasive writer and orator against slavery and for equal rights for African- Americans. His experiences as a slave were central to exposing the injustices of slavery. His first autobiographical work, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, was published in 1845 when he was a runaway slave. His second autobiography, My Bondage and My Freedom, was published in 1855, 9 years after friends and supporters in Great Britain bought his freedom. He frequently lectured about his experiences as a slave, and on what freedom meant to him.

During the Civil War, Douglass served as a recruiter of African- American soldiers for the North, and several times discussed with President Lincoln the problems of slavery. In the early 1870s, Douglass moved from Rochester, NY, where he had established the antislavery newspaper, the North Star, to Washington, DC, where he served as the District's Marshal, 1877-1881, and Recorder of Deeds, 1881-1886. Douglass later served our Nation as Minister to Haiti, 1889-1891.

Even when he was serving in governmental capacities, Douglass continued to deliver speeches on the meaning of abolition and emancipation. Just as he fought for the rights of African-Americans, he also worked to expand women's rights. On the day he died, February 20, 1895, he had attended a women's suffrage meeting.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to one of our greatest Americans, Frederick Douglass. He would have celebrated his 187th birthday this month.

Mr. President, Patrick Okura was an extraordinary man who contributed much to our Nation, the Asian American community, and the fields of mental health and psychology. I was privileged to have him as a great friend and mentor. During my life in the Nation's Capital, Pat was always ready to help and advise me.

At Pat's memorial service on February 11, 2005, at Bradley Hills Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, MD, the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, spoke of Pat and his remarkable life that had an enormous and positive impact on many.

I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Mineta's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. Chairman Stevens and I had the opportunity to meet with Judge Chertoff, and I was encouraged by his desire to work with Congress to address the nation's homeland security needs. I believe that his stated goal of resolving the internal disputes that have plagued DHS since its founding and his commitment to reduce the vulnerability of all our transportation systems to terrorist attack will serve him well in this new capacity.

Though I support Judge Chertoff's nomination, I want to take this opportunity to express some of my thoughts and concerns about the current state of DHS and the Transportation Security Administration in particular.

In the days following September 11, we all recognized the many serious flaws in our homeland security efforts. We were exposed to new and unexpected threats in ways we had never before thought possible. We committed to do everything in our power to ensure that a tragedy like September 11 would never happen again. We took bold, speedy, and necessary action. We made transportation security a national security function by enacting the Aviation Transportation Security Act and the Maritime Transportation Security Act, both considered landmark legislation.

Although a number of high profile actions have been taken to strengthen aviation security, I fear that the same zealous effort to adequately strengthen security across all modes of transportation has stalled. In the more than three years since September 11, very little has been done to aggressively promote security of our ports, our passenger and freight rail system, motor carriers, pipelines, and hazardous materials, despite very specific congressional direction.

Meanwhile, the threats to our transportation security are as serious as they have always been. From the train bombing in Madrid to the maritime attack off the coast of Yemen, the threats have not waned in the slightest.

But, based on the President's Budget, there are apparently some in the Administration who seem to believe that our work is done. The President's Budget recommends shifting critical work away from the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to other organizations within DHS that have neither the expertise nor the necessary authority to be effective. In my view, further decentralizing the responsibilities of TSA will destroy the remaining, limited accountability that TSA provides for transportation security.

I recognize that consolidating 22 Federal agencies into one department presents significant management challenges and that growing pains are to be expected as different agencies come together. However, growing pains are not a license to continue the stovepipe behavior that existed prior to September 11. When Congress created the Department of Homeland Security and, more specifically, the Transportation Security Administration, it made clear that ``business as usual'' was not acceptable. The Department and TSA need to reread the underlying statutes and start functioning as Congress directed. It is my hope that Judge Chertoff will be a leader who understands that necessity.

Let me speak for a few minutes about the particulars of TSA and the President's budget. In truth, the difficult work of securing all of our major modes of transportation, including ports, shipping, railroads, intercity buses, motor carriers, and pipelines is just beginning, and the nation must have a robust agency within the Department dedicated to that task.

Security funding for all modes of transportation beyond aviation has been desperately lacking. The 9/11 Commission found, ``over 90 percent of the nation's $5.3 billion annual investment in the TSA goes to aviation . . . [and] . . . current efforts do not yet reflect a forward-looking strategic plan.''

According to Senate Banking Committee estimates, the Federal Government has spent $9.16 per airline passenger each year on enhanced security measures, while spending less than a penny annually per person on security measures for other modes of transportation.

Port security and safe maritime transportation is of particular interest to me. They are absolutely essential for my state of Hawaii, its economic health, and the life and livelihood of its citizens. Chairman Stevens' state of Alaska is similarly situated, and I know port security is of great importance to him as well.

Apparently, though, we need to remind the Administration--and perhaps the nominee--that 95 percent of the Nation's cargo comes through the ports. The security initiatives at most ports have been, to this point, woefully underfunded, and most are ill prepared for an attack. Unfortunately, our maritime system is only as strong as its weakest link. If there is an incident at any one port, the whole system will screech to a halt, as we scramble to ensure security at other ports. If we had to shut down our entire port system, the economic damage would be widespread, catastrophic and possibly irreversible.

Judge Chertoff has many tools at his disposal to protect our maritime and shipping interests, both through the TSA and the U.S. Coast Guard. Our national shore line extends for thousands of miles, with key cities and facilities located all along the coasts. Whether it is monitoring, credentialing, or inspecting cargo, there is no doubt, port security is a daunting and difficult task.

If Judge Chertoff has difficulty understanding the importance of improved port security, there are 14 members of our committee with major ports in their State, and I am sure each would be more than willing to help provide greater clarity.

Even though we all recognize the overwhelming task of port security, the President's Budget does not do enough. It is true that the Coast Guard increases 7.5 percent over the previous fiscal year, which seems laudable. However, when you look at the numbers, it becomes clear that the administration's request--for the third year in a row--does not recognize that in addition to the Coast Guard's ever-increasing port securities duties, it must still continue critical functions like search and rescue efforts and enforcement of coastal and fisheries laws. There is no question that we must provide for increased security, but there is also no question that other critical missions also impact the free flow of maritime commerce.

In addition to not providing enough funding for Coast Guard activities, the President's budget also proposes to develop a Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program, TIPP, within the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to administer $600 million in integrated grants for the protection of transit, railroads, ports, highways and energy facilities.

This odd realignment of the grant process adds layers of bureaucracy, further diminishes accountability and distribution of these critical funds, and it is directly contrary to the law Congress enacted just 6 months ago. It also shields the fact that the administration is using the same limited pot of money, extending it to a wider range of grantees, and making them compete against one another when each of their projects merit grant funding.

The administration also proposes establishing a new Office of Screening Coordination and Operations, SCO, within the Border and Transportation Security, BTS, Directorate. This new entity would purportedly coordinate procedures to identify and interdict people, cargo and other entities that pose a threat to homeland security.

This short-sighted proposal calls for cutting over 70 percent of TSA's funding for rail, trucking, pipeline, and hazmat security-related initiatives. The ``streamlining of duplicative programs and activities'' effectively eliminates TSA's role in allocating transportation security grants, maritime research and development grants, and cedes its regulatory authority to develop the Transportation Worker Identity Credential, TWIC, program. In short, this budget ignores congressional direction, transfers these functions back to agencies that operate in a stovepipe manner and do not have regulatory authority for credentialing, and decimates TSA's Office of Maritime and Land.

Regarding rail security, the administration's budget fails to propose any dedicated funding or specific programs to address rail security, and given their proposal to eliminate support for Amtrak, it is clear that the administration is not interested in rail service let alone rail security. The recent rail accident in South Carolina and the resulting chlorine gas spill remind us that our rail system presents unique vulnerabilities that, if exploited, could cause irreparable economic and physical damage to communities across the country.

TSA has undertaken several small-scale, ad hoc, efforts to strengthen rail security, from rail passenger screening pilot tests to rail corridor threat assessments in specific corridors. But the administration's lack of support for dedicated funding or programs-- beyond what the Congress has forced upon the agency through the appropriations process--reflects the low priority that TSA leadership and the administration place on this important work. They behave as if September 11 never happened.

The budget proposal for aviation security appears on paper to increase by $156 million, but this funding depends on $1.5 billion in new revenues raised through increased security fees on airline passengers.

We can debate how much we need for security, but it does not make any sense to place the burden for new DHS revenue on an airline industry that is bordering on total bankruptcy, when at the same time the administration is demanding that its unaffordable tax cuts be made permanent.

The airlines have argued convincingly that they cannot pass along increased security fees to the passengers in their highly competitive industry. Few of the carriers have managed even modest periods of profitability since September 11. I must remind people in this town, who often have a short and selective memory, that by a vote of 100 to 0 in the Senate and 410 to 9 in the House, this Congress chose to make transportation security a national security function. Funding homeland security is a Federal responsibility.

Given the many misplaced priorities that I see in the President's Budget proposal, it is clear that the Congress needs to help refocus the Department.

Let me state here before my colleagues and for the record, the Senate Commerce Committee will not stall in its efforts to continue developing comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to strengthen port, rail, and intercity bus security, regardless of the Bush administration's repeated refusal to support or properly address these critical initiatives. Our national transportation system remains an inviting target for terrorists. The system is vulnerable, and an attack could cause widespread, catastrophic economic damage. In fact, in his most recent video tape, Osama bin Laden stated plainly that bankrupting the United States was a primary, al-Qaida goal, and given al-Qaida's previous attacks, it is clear that transportation systems are high on their target list.

So I come to the floor today to inform my colleagues and the administration that, I, along with many of my fellow Commerce Committee members, will be introducing a transportation security reauthorization proposal, which will provide further direction to the Department's cargo security functions, strengthen aviation, maritime, rail, hazardous materials, and pipeline security efforts, and improve interagency cooperation.

The proposal will incorporate several Commerce Committee-reported and Senate-passed bills from the prior Congress and will also put forth new ideas to enhance transportation security across all modes of transportation.

For port security, we will seek to improve interagency cooperation by further developing joint operation command centers. Additionally, our bill will clarify the roles and responsibilities for cargo security programs, while establishing criteria for contingency response plans. Our legislation will further encourage the development of effective technologies that detect terrorist threats by setting a minimum level of R&D funding related to maritime and land security.

To address aviation, we will take several steps to strengthen the existing, professional, screening workforce through improved training of personnel and by directing a more appropriate use of TSA's resources. Additionally, we will seek to streamline and improve collection of airline and passenger security fees to promote a more efficient and healthy aviation industry.

For rail security, we will incorporate an updated version of the Rail Security Act of 2004, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent last year, and we will feature new efforts to ensure the security of hazardous materials that are shipped by rail.

To address the security needs of our other surface transportation modes, the proposal will include funding to improve intercity bus security, strengthened hazardous material transportation security efforts, new security guidelines for truck rental and leasing operations, and the development of pipeline security incident recovery plans.

I look forward to working with Judge Chertoff, the TSA, and the administration on this effort, and I remain hopeful that his new leadership at DHS will inspire the requisite commitment and dedication necessary to meet the security challenges ahead. The work will not be easy. While most of us recognize the improvements that have been made in airline security over the last few years, others are pushing to roll back the progress that we have made.

Despite that progress, there are some that continue to urge TSA to return to the days of private security screening companies, like Argenbright Security and its underpaid, poorly trained workforce. These efforts are not just shortsighted, they disregard a national imperative to treat transportation security as a national security function, and they should be quickly dismissed by the administration. I call on Judge Chertoff to clarify DHS's position on this matter quickly, so the country can continue to have faith in the security efforts we have come to expect when flying.

Similarly, TSA needs more resources and attention paid to port, rail, motor carrier, hazardous materials, and pipeline security matters, not less, and I am hopeful that Judge Chertoff will make strengthening all areas of transportation security one of his top missions.

We must take this opportunity to continue moving in the right direction and avoid taking steps backward. I support the nomination of Michael Chertoff as Secretary of Homeland Security and look forward to working with him to ensure that the American people can depend on a national transportation system that is as safe and secure as possible.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. From the shore, our oceans seem vast and limitless, but I fear that we often overlook the impacts our actions have on the sea and its resources. The Act that I am introducing today with my friends and colleagues, Senators Stevens, Cantwell, Snowe, Kerry, and Lautenberg, focuses on one particular impact that goes unnoticed by many: marine debris. I am proud to say that the Senate unanimously passed this bill in the 108th Congress, and we look for swift action on this legislation again this year.

In a high-tech era of radiation, carcinogenic chemicals, and human- induced climate change, the problem of the trash produced by ocean- going vessels or litter swept out to sea must seem old-fashioned by comparison. Sea garbage would seem to be a simple issue that surely cannot rise to the priority level of the stresses our 21st century civilization places on the natural environment.

Regrettably, that perception is wrong. While marine debris includes conventional ``trash,'' it also includes a vast array of additional materials. It is discarded or lost fishing gear. It is cargo washed overboard. It is abandoned equipment from our commercial fleets. Nor does the ``low-tech'' nature of solid refuse diminish its deadly impact on the creatures of the sea. Whether an animal dies from a immune system weakened by toxic chemicals, or drowns entangled in a discarded fishing net, the result is the same--and in many cases, preventable.

Global warming, disease, and toxic contamination of our seas has already stressed these fragile ecosystems. These threats have been described in last year's Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which also dedicated an entire chapter to the threats posed by marine debris. The bill we introduce today adopts the measures recommended by the Commission to help remove man-made marine debris from the list of ocean threats. It also follows the recommendations of the International Marine Debris Conference held in my home State of Hawaii in 2000.

The bill establishes a Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, directs the U.S. Coast Guard to improve enforcement of laws designed to prevent ship-based pollution from plastics and other garbage, reinvigorates an interagency committee on marine debris, and improves our research and information on marine debris sources, threats, and prevention.

In Hawaii, we are able to see the impacts of marine debris more clearly than most 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. But the job is not done, because more arrives daily. In 2004 alone, the program removed over 125 tons of debris.

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. NOAA's Pacific Islands Region Fisheries Science Center is leading this interagency partnership, which also includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaii's business and university communities, and conservation groups. Not only have we removed debris that poses harm to endangered species, but with the help of donated services, we have recycled the abandoned nets into energy to power residential homes.

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. This is why the bill strengthens and reestablishes an Interagency Committee on Marine Debris to coordinate marine debris prevention and removal efforts among federal agencies state governments, universities, and nongovernmental organizations.

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 and Reduction Act will provide he 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 hope you will join me in supporting enactment of the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. This bill will provide the United States with the programs and resources necessary to protect our most valuable resources, our oceans. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Ballast Water Management Act of 2005. I am joined by my friend and colleague, Senator Ted Stevens. For some time we have recognized the impacts of land-based invasive species. In Hawaii, the impacts of such alien species on native species have been among the most significant in the country.

While not as visible, invasive species pose an equally great threat. One of the major ways that aquatic invasives make their way around the globe is through the ballast water used by vessels.

Modern maritime commerce depends on ships stabilized by the uptake and discharge of huge volumes of ocean water for ballast. Regrettably, ships do not transport such water alone--but also the plants and animals, as well as human diseases such as cholera, that it contains. An estimated 10,000 aquatic organisms travel around the globe each day in the ballast water of cargo vessels. Over 2 billion gallons of ballast water are discharged into waters of the United States each year.

From the zebra mussel fouling the facilities and shores of the Great Lakes, to the noxious algae that choke the coral reefs of Hawaii, aquatic invasive species pose a serious threat to delicate marine ecosystems and human health. The economic costs are also staggering-- the direct and indirect costs of

aquatic invasive species to the economy of the United States amount to billions of dollars each year.

We must find an effective solution to this problem, while at the same time ensuring that our maritime industry can continue to operate in a cost-effective manner. We will need to rely on the steady collaborative efforts of industry, science, government, and coastal communities as we move forward.

The bill I introduce today lays the foundation for such progress. It establishes standards for ballast water treatment that will be effective but on a schedule that our maritime fleet can realistically achieve. It recognizes safety as a paramount concern, and allows flexibility in ballast exchange practices to safeguard vessels and their passengers and crew. Looking to the future, my bill will also encourage the development and adoption of new ballast water treatment technologies, as well as innovative technologies to address other vessel sources of invasives such as hull fouling, through a grant program.

The bill closely tracks and is consistent with an agreement recently negotiated in the International Maritime Organization. It would phase- in ballast water treatment requirements on the same schedule as that adopted by the IMO agreement, and require ballast water exchange to be used until treatment systems are in place. Importantly, the international agreement includes a provision assuring that parties can adopt more stringent measures than those included in the agreement. This provision was sought by the United States and is important to assure the sovereignty of nations in addressing their needs while striving for international cooperation. In light of this provision, the bill includes a standard for treatment that is more effective than that adopted by the international community to ensure that the impacts in the United States are adequately prevented.

Finally, the bill would require a report on other vessel pathways of invasive species, including hull fouling, and the development of standards to reduce the introduction of invasive species through such pathways. This issue is particularly important for Hawaii.

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.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act, and I am pleased to be joined by my Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator Stevens, and fellow Committee members Senators Lott, Cantwell, Snowe, Kerry, and Lautenberg, who are all original cosponsors of the bill. I am pleased to report that the Senate passed this bill unanimously in the 108th Congress, and we look forward to moving this legislation quickly this year, particularly because of its importance to coastal planning for natural hazards such as tsunami.

The jurisdiction of the United States extends 200 miles beyond its coastline and includes the U.S. Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone, or ``EEZ.'' Regrettably, nearly 90 percent of this expanse remains unmapped by modern technologies, meaning that we have almost no information about a swath of ocean as large as the terra firma of the entire United States.

There was a time in the history of our Nation when our best efforts to map the seas meant lowering weights tied to piano wire over the side of a vessel, and measuring how deep they went. These efforts led to the development of rudimentary nautical charts designed to help mariners navigate safely. The rapidly increasing uses of our coastal and ocean waters, however, call for development of a new generation of ecosystem- oriented mapping and assessment products and services.

The technologies of today create richly layered mapping products that expand far beyond just charting for safe navigation. Now, by combining such information as mineral surveys of the U.S. Geological Service, habitat characterizations of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration NOAA, and watershed assessments of the Environmental Protection Agency into a single product, map users are able to consider the impacts of their actions on multiple facets of the marine environment.

Last year, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued a report highlighting the urgent need to modernize, improve, expand, and integrate federal mapping efforts to improve navigation, safety and resource management decisionmaking. By employing integrated mapping approaches, urban and residential growth can be directed away from areas of high risk from ocean-based threats such as tsunami and tidal surge. The risks of maritime activities can be minimized by identifying hazards that could impact on sensitive ecosystems, and devising appropriate mitigation plans. Living marine resource managers can also gauge where and how best to focus their efforts to restore essential marine habitats.

The bill we are introducing today will lay the foundation for producing the ocean maps of the 21st century. It mandates coordination among the many federal agencies with mapping missions with NOAA as the lead in developing national mapping priorities and strategies. The bill would also establish national hydrographic centers to manage comprehensively the mapping data produced by the federal government, encourage innovation in technologies, and authorize the funding necessary to implement this comprehensive effort.

Perhaps the most important lesson that comprehensive, integrated mapping can afford is an awareness of a web of human marine communities as rich and varied as the ocean itself. From awareness grows understanding, respect, and cooperation.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure that will, in turn, support the development of healthy coastal communities across the nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. From the shore, our oceans seem vast and limitless, but I fear that we often overlook the impacts our actions have on the sea and its resources. The Act that I am introducing today with my friends and colleagues, Senators Stevens, Cantwell, Snowe, Kerry, and Lautenberg, focuses on one particular impact that goes unnoticed by many: marine debris. I am proud to say that the Senate unanimously passed this bill in the 108th Congress, and we look for swift action on this legislation again this year.

In a high-tech era of radiation, carcinogenic chemicals, and human- induced climate change, the problem of the trash produced by ocean- going vessels or litter swept out to sea must seem old-fashioned by comparison. Sea garbage would seem to be a simple issue that surely cannot rise to the priority level of the stresses our 21st century civilization places on the natural environment.

Regrettably, that perception is wrong. While marine debris includes conventional ``trash,'' it also includes a vast array of additional materials. It is discarded or lost fishing gear. It is cargo washed overboard. It is abandoned equipment from our commercial fleets. Nor does the ``low-tech'' nature of solid refuse diminish its deadly impact on the creatures of the sea. Whether an animal dies from a immune system weakened by toxic chemicals, or drowns entangled in a discarded fishing net, the result is the same--and in many cases, preventable.

Global warming, disease, and toxic contamination of our seas has already stressed these fragile ecosystems. These threats have been described in last year's Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which also dedicated an entire chapter to the threats posed by marine debris. The bill we introduce today adopts the measures recommended by the Commission to help remove man-made marine debris from the list of ocean threats. It also follows the recommendations of the International Marine Debris Conference held in my home State of Hawaii in 2000.

The bill establishes a Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, directs the U.S. Coast Guard to improve enforcement of laws designed to prevent ship-based pollution from plastics and other garbage, reinvigorates an interagency committee on marine debris, and improves our research and information on marine debris sources, threats, and prevention.

In Hawaii, we are able to see the impacts of marine debris more clearly than most 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. But the job is not done, because more arrives daily. In 2004 alone, the program removed over 125 tons of debris.

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. NOAA's Pacific Islands Region Fisheries Science Center is leading this interagency partnership, which also includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaii's business and university communities, and conservation groups. Not only have we removed debris that poses harm to endangered species, but with the help of donated services, we have recycled the abandoned nets into energy to power residential homes.

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. This is why the bill strengthens and reestablishes an Interagency Committee on Marine Debris to coordinate marine debris prevention and removal efforts among federal agencies state governments, universities, and nongovernmental organizations.

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 and Reduction Act will provide he 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 hope you will join me in supporting enactment of the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. This bill will provide the United States with the programs and resources necessary to protect our most valuable resources, our oceans. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Ballast Water Management Act of 2005. I am joined by my friend and colleague, Senator Ted Stevens. For some time we have recognized the impacts of land-based invasive species. In Hawaii, the impacts of such alien species on native species have been among the most significant in the country.

While not as visible, invasive species pose an equally great threat. One of the major ways that aquatic invasives make their way around the globe is through the ballast water used by vessels.

Modern maritime commerce depends on ships stabilized by the uptake and discharge of huge volumes of ocean water for ballast. Regrettably, ships do not transport such water alone--but also the plants and animals, as well as human diseases such as cholera, that it contains. An estimated 10,000 aquatic organisms travel around the globe each day in the ballast water of cargo vessels. Over 2 billion gallons of ballast water are discharged into waters of the United States each year.

From the zebra mussel fouling the facilities and shores of the Great Lakes, to the noxious algae that choke the coral reefs of Hawaii, aquatic invasive species pose a serious threat to delicate marine ecosystems and human health. The economic costs are also staggering-- the direct and indirect costs of

aquatic invasive species to the economy of the United States amount to billions of dollars each year.

We must find an effective solution to this problem, while at the same time ensuring that our maritime industry can continue to operate in a cost-effective manner. We will need to rely on the steady collaborative efforts of industry, science, government, and coastal communities as we move forward.

The bill I introduce today lays the foundation for such progress. It establishes standards for ballast water treatment that will be effective but on a schedule that our maritime fleet can realistically achieve. It recognizes safety as a paramount concern, and allows flexibility in ballast exchange practices to safeguard vessels and their passengers and crew. Looking to the future, my bill will also encourage the development and adoption of new ballast water treatment technologies, as well as innovative technologies to address other vessel sources of invasives such as hull fouling, through a grant program.

The bill closely tracks and is consistent with an agreement recently negotiated in the International Maritime Organization. It would phase- in ballast water treatment requirements on the same schedule as that adopted by the IMO agreement, and require ballast water exchange to be used until treatment systems are in place. Importantly, the international agreement includes a provision assuring that parties can adopt more stringent measures than those included in the agreement. This provision was sought by the United States and is important to assure the sovereignty of nations in addressing their needs while striving for international cooperation. In light of this provision, the bill includes a standard for treatment that is more effective than that adopted by the international community to ensure that the impacts in the United States are adequately prevented.

Finally, the bill would require a report on other vessel pathways of invasive species, including hull fouling, and the development of standards to reduce the introduction of invasive species through such pathways. This issue is particularly important for Hawaii.

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.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act, and I am pleased to be joined by my Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator Stevens, and fellow Committee members Senators Lott, Cantwell, Snowe, Kerry, and Lautenberg, who are all original cosponsors of the bill. I am pleased to report that the Senate passed this bill unanimously in the 108th Congress, and we look forward to moving this legislation quickly this year, particularly because of its importance to coastal planning for natural hazards such as tsunami.

The jurisdiction of the United States extends 200 miles beyond its coastline and includes the U.S. Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone, or ``EEZ.'' Regrettably, nearly 90 percent of this expanse remains unmapped by modern technologies, meaning that we have almost no information about a swath of ocean as large as the terra firma of the entire United States.

There was a time in the history of our Nation when our best efforts to map the seas meant lowering weights tied to piano wire over the side of a vessel, and measuring how deep they went. These efforts led to the development of rudimentary nautical charts designed to help mariners navigate safely. The rapidly increasing uses of our coastal and ocean waters, however, call for development of a new generation of ecosystem- oriented mapping and assessment products and services.

The technologies of today create richly layered mapping products that expand far beyond just charting for safe navigation. Now, by combining such information as mineral surveys of the U.S. Geological Service, habitat characterizations of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration NOAA, and watershed assessments of the Environmental Protection Agency into a single product, map users are able to consider the impacts of their actions on multiple facets of the marine environment.

Last year, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued a report highlighting the urgent need to modernize, improve, expand, and integrate federal mapping efforts to improve navigation, safety and resource management decisionmaking. By employing integrated mapping approaches, urban and residential growth can be directed away from areas of high risk from ocean-based threats such as tsunami and tidal surge. The risks of maritime activities can be minimized by identifying hazards that could impact on sensitive ecosystems, and devising appropriate mitigation plans. Living marine resource managers can also gauge where and how best to focus their efforts to restore essential marine habitats.

The bill we are introducing today will lay the foundation for producing the ocean maps of the 21st century. It mandates coordination among the many federal agencies with mapping missions with NOAA as the lead in developing national mapping priorities and strategies. The bill would also establish national hydrographic centers to manage comprehensively the mapping data produced by the federal government, encourage innovation in technologies, and authorize the funding necessary to implement this comprehensive effort.

Perhaps the most important lesson that comprehensive, integrated mapping can afford is an awareness of a web of human marine communities as rich and varied as the ocean itself. From awareness grows understanding, respect, and cooperation.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure that will, in turn, support the development of healthy coastal communities across the nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent gradually over a five-year period. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of small and independent businesses as

well as the food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction.

Small businesses rely heavily on the business meal to conduct business, even more so than larger corporations. The Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in releasing a study last May, ``The Impact of Tax Expenditure Policies on Incorporated Small Business,'' found that small incorporated businesses benefit more than their larger counterparts from the meal and entertainment tax deduction. According to the study, small firms that take advantage of the business-meal deduction reduce their effective tax rate by 0.75 percent on average, while larger firms only receive a 0.11 percent reduction in their effective tax rate. More importantly, the study strongly suggests that full reinstatement of the business meal and entertainment deduction should be a major policy priority for small businesses.

Small companies often use restaurants as ``conference space'' to conduct meetings or close deals. Meals are their best and sometimes only marketing tool. Certainly, an increase in the meal and entertainment deduction would have a significant impact on a small businesses bottom line. In addition, the effects on the overall economy would be significant.

Accompanying my statement is the National Restaurant Association's, NRA, State-by-State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 percent. The NRA estimates that an increase to 80 percent would increase business meal sales by $6 billion and create a $13 billion increase to the overall economy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the NRA's State-by-State chart and the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent gradually over a five-year period. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of small and independent businesses as

well as the food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction.

Small businesses rely heavily on the business meal to conduct business, even more so than larger corporations. The Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in releasing a study last May, ``The Impact of Tax Expenditure Policies on Incorporated Small Business,'' found that small incorporated businesses benefit more than their larger counterparts from the meal and entertainment tax deduction. According to the study, small firms that take advantage of the business-meal deduction reduce their effective tax rate by 0.75 percent on average, while larger firms only receive a 0.11 percent reduction in their effective tax rate. More importantly, the study strongly suggests that full reinstatement of the business meal and entertainment deduction should be a major policy priority for small businesses.

Small companies often use restaurants as ``conference space'' to conduct meetings or close deals. Meals are their best and sometimes only marketing tool. Certainly, an increase in the meal and entertainment deduction would have a significant impact on a small businesses bottom line. In addition, the effects on the overall economy would be significant.

Accompanying my statement is the National Restaurant Association's, NRA, State-by-State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 percent. The NRA estimates that an increase to 80 percent would increase business meal sales by $6 billion and create a $13 billion increase to the overall economy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the NRA's State-by-State chart and the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the nomination by President George W. Bush of Mr. Alberto Gonazales to serve as the Attorney General of the United States has stirred strong opposition. Although my first instinct is to support the prerogative of any President to select his own Cabinet, I have concluded upon a thorough review of Mr. Gonzales's record that I must oppose his nomination.

The Constitution confides in the Senate the duty of advice and consent. This means that my colleagues and I have the responsibility of considering the men and women the President nominates for high Government offices, and either confirming or rejecting them. Although many consider advice and consent to be a Senate right, I think of it as a duty that carries an obligation of fairness and due diligence. The power to reject a nominee should only be invoked where there is substantial doubt as to a nominee's fitness for office--not when there is a simple difference in political philosophy.

I do not personally agree with some of the positions that Mr. Gonzales has advocated, but that should come as no surprise, because I do not agree with many of the proposals made by the man who nominated him, President Bush. Most strikingly, I am appalled that he has professed only a ``vague knowledge'' of the racial and ethnic disparities in the imposition of the death penalty in Federal cases. These

very disparities in the State of Hawaii's penal system led me to champion the abolition of the death penalty in our territorial legislature many years ago, and I have remained opposed to this ultimate and irreversible sentence ever since.

Our philosophical disagreement over issues such as the death penalty, do not, in my mind, constitute a sufficient basis for opposing his nomination. His lack of candor and forthrightness in answering simple questions about his record does.

A January 2002 memorandum from Mr. Gonzales to the President advocated abandoning the Geneva Convention and its prohibitions on torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war. As a former officer in our Nation's military, I find this conclusion horrifying and repugnant. As a Senator, I find Mr. Gonzales's refusal to clarify his role in the subsequent development of a U.S. policy for torturing POWs inexcusable.

His decision--supported by the refusal of the Bush administration to turn over key documents--to stonewall efforts to bring this matter to the light of public scrutiny strikes to the very foundation of our Nation's democratic government. Our citizens have a right to openness and transparency in their public officials. Clandestine maneuvers under the ever-growing cloak of ``national security'' and ``executive privilege'' disenfranchises the electorate and deprives them of the information they need in order to make their choices at the polls.

Mr. Gonzales's failure to respond to questions legitimately posed to him by the Senate raises grave doubts in my mind as to his fitness to serve the people of the United States as their Attorney General. Mr. Bush may have the privilege of choosing his own ``team'' for his Cabinet, but American citizens have an unqualified right to be served by public officials who will answer candidly for their actions.

Accordingly, I must reluctantly oppose this nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act. Senator Akaka joins me in sponsoring this measure.

The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act was enacted into law in 1988, and has been reauthorized every 4 years since that time.

The Act provides authority for range of programs and services designed to improve the health care status of the Native people of Hawaii.

With the enactment of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act and the establishment of Native Hawaiian health care systems on most of the islands that make up the State of Hawaii, we have witnessed significant improvements in the health status of Native Hawaiians, but as the findings of unmet needs and health disparities set forth in this bill make clear, we still have a long way to go.

For instance, Native Hawaiians have the highest cancer mortality rates in the State of Hawaii--rates that are 21 percent higher than the rate for the total State male population and 64 percent higher than the rate for the total State female population. Nationally, Native Hawaiians have the third highest mortality rate as a result of breast cancer.

With respect to diabetes, in 2000, Native Hawaiians had the highest mortality rate associated with diabetes in the State--a rate which is 138 percent higher than the statewide rate for all racial groups.

When it comes to heart disease, the mortality rate of Native Hawaiians associated with heart disease is 68 percent higher than the rate for the entire State, and the mortality rate for hypertension is 84 percent higher than that for the entire State.

These statistics on the health status of Native Hawaiians are but a small part of the long list of data that makes clear that our objective of assuring that the Native people of Hawaii attain some parity of good health comparable to that of the larger U.S. population has not yet been achieved.

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

Mr. President, almost ten years ago, I stood before you to introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''

That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.

Five years ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate and credible legal claim. Thereafter, by settlement stipulation, the United States has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to settle the claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of $1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after seven years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the court concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong. Ref. 94-1037X at 28 (Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000) (Report of Hearing Officer).

The bill I introduce today is to authorize the appropriation of those funds that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim. If enacted, this bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that has for far too long been denied.

For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian Pottawatomi.

The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the 18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, llinois, and Wisconsin. From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomis were repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain annuities to the Pottawatomi.

In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal the policy of removal--an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomis to cede the remainder of their traditional lands--some five million acres in and around the city of Chicago and remove themselves west. For years, the Pottawatomis steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics-- including threats of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomis to agree to cede their territory. Finally, those Pottawatomis who were present relented and on September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy-seven members of the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the ``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession.

In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the United States would give to the Pottawatomis 5 million acres of comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. But the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and unilaterally switched the land to five million acres in Iowa. The Treaty Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice would be

done.'' Treaty of Chicago, as amended, Article 4. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomis sent a delegation to evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was ``not fit for snakes to live on.''

While some Pottawatomis removed westward, many of the Pottawatomis-- particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the Treaty--refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to forcefully remove Pottawatomis who remained in the east--with devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed by mercenaries who were paid on a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas against their will and without their consent.

Knowing of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomis including most of those in the Wisconsin Band vigorously resisted forced removal. To avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Band ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments disclose that many Pottawatomis were forced to leave their homes without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes on their backs.

By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864 (13 Stat. 172) the Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be retained for their use in the United States Treasury. (H.R. Rep. No. 470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7, 1949). Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin Band.

In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas, the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario-- petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of annuities as required by the law and treaties. (Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th Cong., 2d Sess.) By the Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 380), the Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis that still remained in the East. In addition, the Congress ordered the Secretary to determine ``the[] [Wisconsin Bands] proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other moneys paid to or expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the claimant Indians have not shared, [and] the amount of such monies retained in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the clamant Indians as directed the provision of the Act of June 25, 1864.''

In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of Interior directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster documented 2007 Wisconsin Pottawatomis: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan and 1550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of annuities for the Pottawatomis in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339 and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. The Congress thereafter enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to satisfy most of money owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds.

Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing international matters of the period, including the intervention of World War I, the Pottawatomis then came to the U.S. Congress for redress of their claim.

In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA) granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis from both sides of the border--brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28 (Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823 (1950). The claim of the Wisconsin Band residing in the United States that was filed in the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445 (1983). The Court of Claims concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the American Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis for any monies not paid. Still the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional limits of the ICCA.

Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate and after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited day in court through the congressional reference process. The court has now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and equitable'' resolution to this claim.

The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150 years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing to admit when it has left unfulfilled an obligation and that the United States is willing to do what we can to see that justice--so long delayed is not now denied.

Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National Congress of American Indians (the oldest, largest and most- representative tribal organization here in the United States), the Assembly of First Nations (which includes all recognized tribal entities in Canada), and each and every of the Pottawatomi tribal groups that remain in the United States today.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act. Senator Akaka joins me in sponsoring this measure.

The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act was enacted into law in 1988, and has been reauthorized every 4 years since that time.

The Act provides authority for range of programs and services designed to improve the health care status of the Native people of Hawaii.

With the enactment of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act and the establishment of Native Hawaiian health care systems on most of the islands that make up the State of Hawaii, we have witnessed significant improvements in the health status of Native Hawaiians, but as the findings of unmet needs and health disparities set forth in this bill make clear, we still have a long way to go.

For instance, Native Hawaiians have the highest cancer mortality rates in the State of Hawaii--rates that are 21 percent higher than the rate for the total State male population and 64 percent higher than the rate for the total State female population. Nationally, Native Hawaiians have the third highest mortality rate as a result of breast cancer.

With respect to diabetes, in 2000, Native Hawaiians had the highest mortality rate associated with diabetes in the State--a rate which is 138 percent higher than the statewide rate for all racial groups.

When it comes to heart disease, the mortality rate of Native Hawaiians associated with heart disease is 68 percent higher than the rate for the entire State, and the mortality rate for hypertension is 84 percent higher than that for the entire State.

These statistics on the health status of Native Hawaiians are but a small part of the long list of data that makes clear that our objective of assuring that the Native people of Hawaii attain some parity of good health comparable to that of the larger U.S. population has not yet been achieved.

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