Floor Statements

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, many of you know of my continued support and advocacy on the importance of addressing the plight of Filipino World War II veterans. As an American, I believe the treatment of Filipino World War II veterans is bleak and shameful. The Philippines became a United States possession in 1898, when it was ceded by Spain, following the Spanish-American War. In 1934, the Congress enacted the Philippine Independence Act, Public Law 73-127, which provided a 10- year time frame for the independence of the Philippines. Between 1934 and final independence in 1946, the United States retained certain powers over the Philippines including the right to call military forces organized by the newly-formed Commonwealth government into the service of the United States Armed Forces.

The Commonwealth Army of the Philippines was called to serve with the United States Armed Forces in the Far East during World War II under President Roosevelt's July 26, 1941 military order. The Filipinos who served were entitled to full veterans' benefits by reason of their active service with our armed forces. Hundreds were wounded in battle and many hundreds more died in battle. Shortly after Japan's surrender, the Congress enacted the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 for the purpose of sending Filipino troops to occupy enemy lands, and to oversee military installations at various overseas locations. These troops were authorized to receive pay and allowances for services performed throughout the Western Pacific. Although hostilities had ceased, wartime service of these troops continued as a matter of law until the end of 1946.

Despite all of their sacrifices, on February 18, 1946, the Congress passed the Rescission Act of 1946, now codified as Section 107 of Title 38 of the United States Code. The 1946 Act deemed that the service performed by these Filipino veterans would not be recognized as ``active service'' for the purpose of any U.S. law conferring ``rights, privileges, or benefits.'' Accordingly, Section 107 denied Filipino veterans access to health care, particularly for non-service-connected disabilities, and pension benefits. Section 107 also limited service- connected disability and death compensation for Filipino veterans to 50 percent of what their American counterparts receive.

On May 27, 1946, the Congress enacted the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriations Rescission Act, which duplicated the language that had eliminated Filipino veterans' benefits under the First Rescission Act. Thus, Filipino veterans who fought in the service of the United States during World War II have been precluded from receiving most of the veterans' benefits that had been available to them before 1946, and that are available to all other veterans of our armed forces regardless of race, national origin, or citizenship status.

The Filipino Veterans Equity Act, which I introduce today, would restore the benefits due to these veterans by granting full recognition of service for the sacrifices they made during World War II. These benefits include veterans health care, service-connected disability compensation, non-service connected disability compensation, dependent indemnity compensation, death pension, and full burial benefits.

Throughout the years, I have sponsored several measures to rectify the lack of appreciation America has shown to these gallant men and women who stood in harm's way with our American soldiers and fought the common enemy during World War II. It is time that we as a Nation, recognize our long-standing history and friendship with the Philippines. Of the 120,000 that served in the Commonwealth Army during World War II, there are approximately 60,000 Filipino veterans currently residing in the United States and the Philippines. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Filipino veteran population is expected to decrease to approximately 20,000 or roughly one-third of the current population by 2010.

Heroes should never be forgotten or ignored; let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed so much. Let us instead work to repay all of these brave men for their sacrifices by providing them the veterans' benefits they deserve.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Akaka, as a cosponsor of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act.

Having served on the Indian Affairs Committee for the past 27 years, I know that most of our colleagues are more familiar with conditions and circumstances in Indian country, and naturally, they bring their experience with Indian country to bear in considering this measure, which has been pending in the Senate for the past six years.

Accordingly, Mr. President, I believe it is important that our colleagues understand what this bill seeks to accomplish as well as how it differs from legislation affecting Indian country.

It is a little known fact that beginning in 1910 and since that time, the

Congress has passed and the President has signed into law over 160 Federal laws designed to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians.

Thus, Federal laws which authorize the provision of health care, education, housing, and job training and employment services, as well as programs to provide for the preservation of the Native Hawaiian language, Native language immersion, Native cultural and grave protections and repatriation of Native sacred objects have been in place for decades.

The Native Hawaiian programs do not draw upon funding that is appropriated for American Indians or Alaska Natives--there are separate authorizations for programs that are administered by different Federal agencies--not the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service, for instance--and the Native Hawaiian program funds are not drawn from the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee account. Thus, they have no impact on the funding that is provided for the other indigenous, native people of the United States.

However, unlike the native people residing on the mainland, Native Hawaiians have not been able to exercise their rights as Native people to self-determination or self-governance because their government was overthrown on January 17, 1893.

This bill would provide a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian government and the resumption of a political and legal relationship between that government and the government of the United States.

Because the Native Hawaiian government is not an Indian tribe, the body of Federal Indian law that would otherwise customarily apply when the United States extends Federal recognition to an Indian tribal group does not apply.

Thus, the bill provides authority for a process of negotiations amongst the United States, the State of Hawaii, and the reorganized Native Hawaiian government to address such matters as the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction by the respective governments, the transfer of land and natural resources and other assets, and the exercise of governmental authority over those lands, natural resources and other assets.

Upon reaching agreement, the U.S. Congress and the legislature of State of Hawaii would have to enact legislation implementing the agreements of the three governments, including amendments that will necessarily have to be made to existing Federal law, such as the Hawaii Admissions Act and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, and to State law, including amendments to the Hawaii State Constitution, before any of the new governmental relationships and authorities can take effect.

That is why concerns which are premised on the manner in which Federal Indian law provides for the respective governmental authorities of the state governments and Indian tribal governments simply don't apply in Hawaii.

Our state government, both the Governor and the state legislature of Hawaii, fully support enactment of this measure. They will be at the table with the United States and the Native Hawaiian government to shape the relationships amongst governments that will best serve the needs and interests not only of the Native Hawaiian community but those of all of the citizens of Hawaii.

Mr. President, we have every confidence that consistent with the Federal policy of the last 35 years, the restoration of the rights to self-determination and self-governance will enable the Native Hawaiian people, as the direct, lineal descendants of the aboriginal, indigenous native people of what has become our nation's fiftieth state, to take their rightful place in the family of governments that makes up our constitutional system of governance.

Mr. President, many of you know of my continued support and advocacy on the importance of addressing the plight of Filipino World War II veterans. As an American, I believe the treatment of Filipino World War II veterans is bleak and shameful. The Philippines became a United States possession in 1898, when it was ceded by Spain, following the Spanish-American War. In 1934, the Congress enacted the Philippine Independence Act, Public Law 73-127, which provided a 10- year time frame for the independence of the Philippines. Between 1934 and final independence in 1946, the United States retained certain powers over the Philippines including the right to call military forces organized by the newly-formed Commonwealth government into the service of the United States Armed Forces.

The Commonwealth Army of the Philippines was called to serve with the United States Armed Forces in the Far East during World War II under President Roosevelt's July 26, 1941 military order. The Filipinos who served were entitled to full veterans' benefits by reason of their active service with our armed forces. Hundreds were wounded in battle and many hundreds more died in battle. Shortly after Japan's surrender, the Congress enacted the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 for the purpose of sending Filipino troops to occupy enemy lands, and to oversee military installations at various overseas locations. These troops were authorized to receive pay and allowances for services performed throughout the Western Pacific. Although hostilities had ceased, wartime service of these troops continued as a matter of law until the end of 1946.

Despite all of their sacrifices, on February 18, 1946, the Congress passed the Rescission Act of 1946, now codified as Section 107 of Title 38 of the United States Code. The 1946 Act deemed that the service performed by these Filipino veterans would not be recognized as ``active service'' for the purpose of any U.S. law conferring ``rights, privileges, or benefits.'' Accordingly, Section 107 denied Filipino veterans access to health care, particularly for non-service-connected disabilities, and pension benefits. Section 107 also limited service- connected disability and death compensation for Filipino veterans to 50 percent of what their American counterparts receive.

On May 27, 1946, the Congress enacted the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriations Rescission Act, which duplicated the language that had eliminated Filipino veterans' benefits under the First Rescission Act. Thus, Filipino veterans who fought in the service of the United States during World War II have been precluded from receiving most of the veterans' benefits that had been available to them before 1946, and that are available to all other veterans of our armed forces regardless of race, national origin, or citizenship status.

The Filipino Veterans Equity Act, which I introduce today, would restore the benefits due to these veterans by granting full recognition of service for the sacrifices they made during World War II. These benefits include veterans health care, service-connected disability compensation, non-service connected disability compensation, dependent indemnity compensation, death pension, and full burial benefits.

Throughout the years, I have sponsored several measures to rectify the lack of appreciation America has shown to these gallant men and women who stood in harm's way with our American soldiers and fought the common enemy during World War II. It is time that we as a Nation, recognize our long-standing history and friendship with the Philippines. Of the 120,000 that served in the Commonwealth Army during World War II, there are approximately 60,000 Filipino veterans currently residing in the United States and the Philippines. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Filipino veteran population is expected to decrease to approximately 20,000 or roughly one-third of the current population by 2010.

Heroes should never be forgotten or ignored; let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed so much. Let us instead work to repay all of these brave men for their sacrifices by providing them the veterans' benefits they deserve.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Akaka, as a cosponsor of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act.

Having served on the Indian Affairs Committee for the past 27 years, I know that most of our colleagues are more familiar with conditions and circumstances in Indian country, and naturally, they bring their experience with Indian country to bear in considering this measure, which has been pending in the Senate for the past six years.

Accordingly, Mr. President, I believe it is important that our colleagues understand what this bill seeks to accomplish as well as how it differs from legislation affecting Indian country.

It is a little known fact that beginning in 1910 and since that time, the

Congress has passed and the President has signed into law over 160 Federal laws designed to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians.

Thus, Federal laws which authorize the provision of health care, education, housing, and job training and employment services, as well as programs to provide for the preservation of the Native Hawaiian language, Native language immersion, Native cultural and grave protections and repatriation of Native sacred objects have been in place for decades.

The Native Hawaiian programs do not draw upon funding that is appropriated for American Indians or Alaska Natives--there are separate authorizations for programs that are administered by different Federal agencies--not the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service, for instance--and the Native Hawaiian program funds are not drawn from the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee account. Thus, they have no impact on the funding that is provided for the other indigenous, native people of the United States.

However, unlike the native people residing on the mainland, Native Hawaiians have not been able to exercise their rights as Native people to self-determination or self-governance because their government was overthrown on January 17, 1893.

This bill would provide a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian government and the resumption of a political and legal relationship between that government and the government of the United States.

Because the Native Hawaiian government is not an Indian tribe, the body of Federal Indian law that would otherwise customarily apply when the United States extends Federal recognition to an Indian tribal group does not apply.

Thus, the bill provides authority for a process of negotiations amongst the United States, the State of Hawaii, and the reorganized Native Hawaiian government to address such matters as the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction by the respective governments, the transfer of land and natural resources and other assets, and the exercise of governmental authority over those lands, natural resources and other assets.

Upon reaching agreement, the U.S. Congress and the legislature of State of Hawaii would have to enact legislation implementing the agreements of the three governments, including amendments that will necessarily have to be made to existing Federal law, such as the Hawaii Admissions Act and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, and to State law, including amendments to the Hawaii State Constitution, before any of the new governmental relationships and authorities can take effect.

That is why concerns which are premised on the manner in which Federal Indian law provides for the respective governmental authorities of the state governments and Indian tribal governments simply don't apply in Hawaii.

Our state government, both the Governor and the state legislature of Hawaii, fully support enactment of this measure. They will be at the table with the United States and the Native Hawaiian government to shape the relationships amongst governments that will best serve the needs and interests not only of the Native Hawaiian community but those of all of the citizens of Hawaii.

Mr. President, we have every confidence that consistent with the Federal policy of the last 35 years, the restoration of the rights to self-determination and self-governance will enable the Native Hawaiian people, as the direct, lineal descendants of the aboriginal, indigenous native people of what has become our nation's fiftieth state, to take their rightful place in the family of governments that makes up our constitutional system of governance.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 4 minutes.

Madam President, I rise in support of the confirmation of Mr. Carlos Gutierrez to serve as our Nation's Secretary of Commerce. As Secretary of the Department of Commerce, Mr. Gutierrez will take over the helm of a very diverse department, for example, responsible for counting fish as well as people, predicting the weather, developing and promoting standards, technology, and promoting fair trade. This is a very difficult and complex appointment, but I believe Mr. Gutierrez's impressive background and experience will serve him well in this position.

He was born in Cuba. Mr. Gutierrez left Havana in 1960, shortly after Fidel Castro took power. Although he has no college degree, through hard work and perseverance, he rose from delivering corn flakes to small stores in Mexico City to the moment when he took over Kellogg's cereal and convenience food empire.

While at Kellogg, he revitalized the company and put it on a new path of success. Mr. Gutierrez will face a variety of demanding challenges during his tenure. But few are greater than addressing the administration's current record on trade. Just this month, our trade deficit hit an astounding and recordbreaking $60.3 billion, and I am certain that all of us will agree that this is entirely unacceptable. I would like to see the new Secretary lead the Department in an innovative and comprehensive effort to reverse the current trend. I can assure Mr. Gutierrez that this committee will be a committed partner in such an effort.

I urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of Mr. Carlos Gutierrez to serve as Secretary of Commerce.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I introduce the United States Military Cancer Institute Research Collaborative Act. This legislation would formally establish the United States Military Cancer Institute (USMCI), and support the collaborative augmentation of research efforts in cancer epidemiology, prevention and control. Although the USMCI already exists as an informal collaborative effort, this bill will formally establish the institution with a mission of providing for the maintenance of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and treatment, and studying the epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups. By formally establishing the USMCI, it will be in a better position to unite military research efforts with other cancer research centers.

Cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are significant issues for the military population, thus the USMCI was organized to coordinate the existing military cancer assets. The USMCI has a comprehensive database of its beneficiary population of 9 million people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14 years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is predominantly Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic.

The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, is a Professor of Surgery at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). A highly talented cancer epidemiologist, Dr. Kangmin Zhu, has also been recruited to lead the USMCI Prevention and Control Programs.

The USMCI currently resides in the Washington, D.C., area, and its components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. There are more than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of Defense civilian scientists, working in the USMCI.

The USMCI intends to expand its research activities to military medical centers across the Nation. Special emphasis will be placed on the study of genetic and environmental factors in carcinogenesis among the entire population, including Asian, Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic subpopulations.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Tsunami Preparedness Act with my friend and distinguished colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, in our new capacities as Co-Chair and Chair of the Commerce Committee. Our bill today provides a scientific and technological response to minimize the threats posed by tsunami to our own shores, and the coastal communities of the world, as exemplified by the appalling scope of the Indian Ocean tragedy. The bill builds on our work to establish a system in the Pacific that is a model for the world, and also provides for its expansion and improvement to repair gaps that have been identified recently.

Protecting human life and property from natural disaster requires the ability to reliably detect and forecast, the capacity to broadcast warnings in a timely and informative manner, and the knowledge in communities of how to respond and evacuate to safety. 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 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.

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 followed suit by establishing an observatory in Palmer, Alaska, 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 Tsunami--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, the mathematical models PMEL and others have developed 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, fifteen counties up and down 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 ten 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.

Our legislation today 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, the bill 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, and incorporate a variety of seismic and tsunami detection technologies, including deep ocean buoys, as well as 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 also 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, consisting (FEMA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and affected coastal states and territories, 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 also 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.

A critical component of the bill requires NOAA to upgrade and modernize the U.S. tsunami detection system by December 2007, as well as 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 upon any equipment or system failures that will impair regional detection, and 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.

The bill recognizes the need for global coordination on tsunami preparedness, requiring 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.

Finally, the bill authorizes $35 million annually for six years to support these 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 ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our country.

Currently, retired members of the Armed Services are permitted to travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected disabilities.

We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it serves as a reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their sacrifices.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through the Medicare program.

First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for services provided to a client who is hospitalized.

Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care provider network. They are legally regulated in every state of the nation and are recognized as independent providers of mental health care throughout the health care system. It is time to correct the disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jim K. Yoshida, to obtain recognition of his service with the U.S. military in Korea so that he may obtain veteran's status.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Nursing School Clinics Act. This measure builds on our concerted efforts to provide access to quality health care for Americans by offering grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary care clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are most needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for nursing schools to enhance the scope of student training and education by providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.

Primary care clinics administered by nursing schools are university or nonprofit primary care centers developed mainly in collaboration with university schools of nursing and the communities they serve. These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are nurse practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement patient care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of nursing faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with academic institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse practitioners. To date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics have yielded excellent results, including significantly fewer emergency room visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of specialists, as compared to conventional primary health care.

This bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery in underserved areas with the education of advanced practice nurses. To accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the financial incentives for clinic operators to establish the clinics.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider a wide range of proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must approach the issue of health care with creativity and determination, ensuring that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always been an integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School Clinics Act recognizes the central role nurses can perform as care givers to the medically underserved.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act, a bill that responds to the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and disease prevention programs. Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are without access to a primary care provider. Even in areas where providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geography, distance, lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural populations, language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.

Compound these problems with limited financial resources, and the result is that many Americans living in rural communities go without vital health care, especially preventive care. Children fail to receive immunizations and routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries occur needlessly, and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early symptoms of emotional problems and substance abuse go undetected, and often develop into full-blown disorders.

An Institute of Medicine IOM report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research,'' highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. The training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural health care providers lack preventive care training opportunities.

Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers must be encouraged. Through such training, rural health care providers can build a strong educational foundation from the behavioral, biological, and psychological sciences. Interdisciplinary team prevention training will also facilitate operations at sites with both health and mental health clinics by facilitating routine consultation between groups. Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their services as part of the health care team will contribute to the overall health of rural communities.

The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act would implement the

risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific interventions for those risk factors. The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places a huge financial burden on communities, families, and individuals. By implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the potential psychological and financial savings are enormous.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Native Hawaiian Medicaid Coverage Act. This legislation would authorize a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent (FMAP) of 100 percent for the payment of health care costs of Native Hawaiians who receive health care from Federally Qualified Health Centers or the Native Hawaiian Health Care System.

This bill was originally a provision within the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which the Senate passed by an overwhelming majority of 76 to 21, but was dropped from the final Medicare Prescription Drug Conference Report.

This bill is modeled on the Native Alaskan Health Care Act, which provides for a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent (FMAP) of 100 percent for payment of health care costs for Native Alaskans by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, or a tribal organization.

Community health centers serve as the ``safety net'' for uninsured and medically underserved Native Hawaiians and other United States citizens, providing comprehensive primary and preventive health services to the entire community. Outpatient services offered to the entire family include comprehensive primary care, preventive health maintenance, and education outreach in the local community. Community health centers, with their multidisciplinary approach, offer cost effective integration of health promotion and wellness with chronic disease management and primary care focused on serving vulnerable populations.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief mill on behalf of Donald C. Pence of Stanford, North Carolina, for compensation for the failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay dependency and indemnity compensation to Kathryn E. Box, the now- deceased mother of Donald C. Pence. It is rare that a federal agency admits a mistake. In this case, the Department of Veterans Affairs has admitted that a mistake was made and explored ways to permit payment under the law, including equitable relief, but has found no provision authorizing the Department to release the remaining benefits that were unpaid to Mrs. Box at the time of her death. My bill would correct this injustice, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and clinical social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

In my judgment, it is unfortunate that Medicare requires clinical supervision of the services provided by certain health professionals and does not allow them to function to the full extent of their State practice licenses. Those who need the services of outpatient rehabilitation facilities should have access to a wide range of social and behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health care services under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the TRICARE Military Health Program of the Uniformed Services, the Medicare (Part B) Program, and numerous private insurance plans. This legislation will ensure that these qualified professionals achieve the same recognition under the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Registered Nurse Safe Staffing Act. I am introducing this bill on behalf of the American Nurses Association's Chief Executive Officer and President Linda Stierle, MSN, RN, CNAA and Barbara A. Blakeney, MS, APRN, BC, ANP, respectively. For over four decades I have been a committed supporter of nurses and the delivery of safe patient care. While enforceable regulations will help to ensure patient safety, the complexity and variability of today's hospitals require that staffing patterns be determined at the hospital and unit level, with the professional input of registered nurses. More than a decade of research demonstrates that nurse staff levels and the skill mix of nursing staff directly affect the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients. Studies show that when there are more registered nurses, there are lower mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay, reduced costs, and fewer complications.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the risks of patient mortality rose by 7 percent for every additional patient added to the average nurse's workload. In the midst of a nursing shortage and increasing financial pressures, hospitals often find it difficult to maintain adequate staffing. While nursing research indicates that adequate registered nurse staffing is vital to the health and safety of patients, there is no standardized public reporting mechanism, nor enforcement of adequate staffing plans. The only regulations addressing nursing staff exists vaguely in Medicare Conditions of Participation which states: ``The nursing service must have an adequate number of licensed registered nurses, licensed practice (vocational) nurse, and other personnel to provide nursing care to all patients as needed''.

This bill will require Medicare Participating Hospitals to develop and maintain reliable and valid systems to determine sufficient registered nurse staffing. Given the demands that the healthcare industry faces today, it is our responsibility to ensure that patients have access to adequate nursing care. However, we must ensure that the decisions by which care is provided are made by the clinical experts, the registered nurses caring for these patients. Support of this bill supports our nation's nurses during a critical shortage, but more importantly, works to ensure the safety of their patients.

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

Mr. President, all too often we find that our Nation's civilian employees of the Federal Government who have been forcibly detained or interned by a hostile government do not receive the recognition they deserve. My bill would correct this inequity and provide a prisoner of war medal for such citizens.

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

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.

Mr. President, our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great nation that we are today.

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

Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Cooperative Housing Corporations (co-ops), to convert to condominium forms of ownership.

Under current law, a conversion from cooperative shareholding to condominium ownership is taxable at a corporate level as well as an individual level. The conversion is treated as a corporate liquidation, and therefore taxed accordingly. In addition, a capital gains tax is levied on any increase between the owner's basis in the co-op share pre-conversion and the market value of the condominium interest post- conversion. This double taxation dissuades condominium conversion because the owner is being taxed on the transaction which is nothing more than a change in the form of ownership. While the Internal Revenue Service concedes that there are no discernable advantages to society of the cooperative form of ownership, they do not view federal tax statutes as providing sufficient flexibility with which to address the obstacles of conversion.

Cooperative housing organizes the ownership structure into a corporation, with shares of stock for each apartment unit, which are sold to buyers. The corporation then issues a proprietary lease entitling the owner of the stock to the use of the unit in perpetuity. Because the investment is in the form of a share of stock, investors sometimes lose their entire investment as a result of debt incurred by the corporation in construction and development. In addition, due to the structure of a cooperative housing corporation, a prospective purchaser of shares in the corporation from an existing tenant- stockholders has difficulty obtaining mortgage financing for the purchase. Furthermore, tenant-stockholders of cooperative housing also encounter difficulties in securing bank loans for the full value of their investment.

As a result, owners of cooperative housing are increasingly looking toward conversion to the condominium structure of ownership. Condominium ownership permits the owner of a unit to own the unit itself, eliminating the cooperative housing dilemma of corporate debt that supercedes the investment of cooperative housing share owners, and other financial concerns.

The legislation I introduce today will remove the penalty of double taxation from the conversion of cooperative housing to condominium ownership, and will greatly benefit co-op owners across the nation. The bill does not apply to cooperatives which have been or are now being financed by any federal, state, or local programs for the purpose of assisting in the construction of affordable housing cooperatives or the conversion of rental units to affordable housing cooperatives. I urge my colleagues' consideration and support for this measure.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing flights from the air transportation excise tax. A clarifying amendment to the Tax Code is needed due to a problem that exists in the application of the excise tax.

In 1986, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), issued a Private Letter Ruling in which it exempted one Hawaii-based air tour operator from paying the air passenger transportation excise tax, but has not applied equal treatment to other similarly situated aerial sightseeing tour operators. It is my belief that the IRS should be consistent in its application of this excise tax.

Under current law, a variety of excise taxes on air transportation are imposed to finance the Airport and Airway Trust funds program that is administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. For example, an air passenger transportation excise tax is imposed on users of our nation's airports and airways. The Congress intended that the tax be levied on passengers traveling on scheduled commercial airlines. In addition, for the most part, the tax is imposed on each flight segment.

The Congress did not intend to have the tax applied to air tour operators, who utilize our system of airways differently. Our national transportation system receives little or no benefit from aerial sightseeing operations. Air tour operations are not scheduled commercial airlines. They are for entertainment purposes and are circular, in that they begin and end at the same destination point.

Hawaii is among a small handful of states where our citizens can enjoy aerial tours of sights that are remote or difficult to reach by land. Aerial sightseeing tours are also enjoyed in Alaska, California, Washington, Arizona, and even New York City. The imposition of the air transportation excise tax on aerial sightseeing flights will significantly raise the consumer price on air tours. Doing so will cause many small aerial sightseeing tour operators, especially in my home state, to lose customers. Many of these small companies have struggled to stay in business after incurring significant losses in the months following September 11, 2001, when our government imposed flight restrictions across the nation. Those flight restrictions prevented many flight operations in all segments of the general aviation industry for many months into early 2002.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support my bill, which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing trips from the air transportation excise tax. Under my bill, air tour operations would still be subject to the aviation fuel excise tax.

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

Mr. President today I am introducing legislation that would provide a federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. This organization represents outstanding health care professionals who have made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, podiatry, social work, and veterinary medicine. When fully established, each of the ten academies will possess 150 distinguished practitioners selected by their peers. This umbrella organization will be able to provide the Congress of the United States and the executive branch with considerable health policy expertise, especially from the perspective of those individuals who are in the forefront of actually providing health care.

As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best interest to ensure that the Congress has direct and immediate access to the recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care practitioners.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our Nation's clinical social workers to use their mental health expertise on behalf of the federal judiciary by conducting psychological and psychiatric exams.

I feel that the time has come to allow our Nation's judicial system to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would be very much in our Nation's best interest.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to modify Title VII of the Public Health Service Act in order to provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs.

Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of behavioral science expertise into our community of public health providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most distressing problems.

The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the provision of critical services to minority populations because often they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health care services to underserved communities.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research. Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect. The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information about basic and clinical social work research, and training, with emphasis on service to underserved and rural populations.

While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral and mental health care outcomes for our Nation's children, families, the elderly, and others.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost- effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social Work can provide in facilitating their work.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of our Nation's clinical social workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act. This legislation would (1) establish a new social work training program, (2) ensure that social work students are eligible for support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program, (3) provide social work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority Centers of Excellence programs, (4) permit schools offering degrees in social work to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics, and (5) ensure that social work is recognized as a profession under the Public Health Maintenance Organization Act.

Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to people of this Nation, few Federal programs exist to provide opportunities for social work training in health and mental health care.

Social workers have long provided quality mental health services to our citizens and continue to be at the forefront of establishing innovative programs to serve our disadvantaged populations. I believe it is important to ensure that the special expertise social workers possess continues to be available to the citizens of this Nation. This bill, by providing financial assistance to schools of social work and social work students, acknowledges the long history and critical importance of the services provided by social work professionals. I believe it is time to provide them with the recognition they deserve.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a psychology post-doctoral program. Psychologists have made a unique contribution in reaching out to the nation's medically underserved populations. Expertise in behavioral science is useful in addressing grave concerns such as violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent and child behavioral disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of a psychology post-doctoral program could be an effective way to find solutions to these issues.

Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in traditionally underserved settings have been successful in retaining participants to serve the same populations. For example, mental health professionals who have participated in these specialized federally funded programs have tended not only to meet their repayment obligations, but have continued to work in the public sector or with the underserved.

While a doctorate in psychology provides broad-based knowledge and mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, specialized post-doctoral fellowship programs help to develop particular diagnostic and treatment skills required to respond effectively to underserved populations. For example, what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child recently relocated from Southeast Asia might actually reflect a cultural value of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic learning. Specialized assessment skills enable the clinician to initiate effective treatment.

Domestic violence poses a significant public health problem and is not just a problem for the criminal justice system. Violence against women results in thousands of hospitalizations a year. Rates of child and spouse abuse in rural areas are particularly high, as are the rates of alcohol abuse and depression in adolescents. A post-doctoral fellowship program in the psychology of the rural populations could be of special benefit in addressing these problems.

Given the demonstrated success and effectiveness of specialized training programs, it is incumbent upon us to encourage participation in post-doctoral fellowships that respond to the needs of the nation's underserved.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social Workers' Recognition Act to correct a continuing problem in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as independent providers of quality mental health care services.

Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance plans across the nation. However, Title V of the United States Code, does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' compensation claims brought by federal employees. The bill I am introducing corrects this problem.

It is a sad irony that Federal employees may select a clinical social worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits federal employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an undue burden on federal employees where clinical social workers are the only available providers of mental health care.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to honor all our military families by introducing a Resolution to designate November as National Military Family Month. As we all know, memories fade and the hardships experienced by our military families are easily forgotten unless they touch our own immediate family.

Today, we have our men and women deployed all over the world, engaged in this war on terrorism. These far-ranging military deployments are extremely difficult on the families who bear this heavy burden.

To honor these families, the Armed Services YMCA has sponsored Military Family Week in late November since 1996. However, due to frequent ``short week'' conflicts around the Thanksgiving holidays, the designated week has not always afforded enough time to schedule observance on and near our military bases.

I believe a month long observation will allow greater opportunity to plan events. Moreover, it will provide a greater opportunity to stimulate media support.

A resolution will help pave the way for this effort. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this tribute to our military families.

Mr. President, although there were voting irregularities in Ohio, I will not vote in support of the objection. I do respect the result of the recent Presidential election, but I do not respect the process. Several thousand voters believe they were discouraged or even prevented from voting, and several thousand who did vote believe that their votes were not correctly reported. The inequitable allocation of voting machines, the lack of instruction for the review of provisional ballots, and the questionable activities surrounding the recount of the electronic ballots call into question the final results in Ohio. However, I am unconvinced that it would have made a difference in the final outcome of this Presidential election.

I had hoped that we would not have the electoral college votes called into question again. After the 2000 Presidential election, we worked together to pass election reform legislation, the Help America Vote Act. That legislation set Federal requirements for provisional ballots and for voter information, registration, and identification. Unfortunately, that legislation has not yet been fully implemented and does not go far enough.

I would like to work with my colleagues craft legislation to ensure that all of our citizens are encouraged to vote and participate in our democratic process. Our citizens must believe their vote will count. At a time when we are risking lives of our service men and women to spread democracy throughout the world, we cannot ignore the threats to the democratic process here at home. I do not relish the vote I am forced to cast today, but I as I do, I look forward to being able to cast future votes on Federal election reform to ensure that we are not in this position again.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in tribute to Senator Ernest ``Fritz'' Hollings. I will miss my good friend from South Carolina, who in 2003, at the age of 81, finally became his State's senior senator--after 36 years as a junior Senator.

In addition to being remembered as a coauthor of the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings legislation that cut tens of billions of dollars from the Federal budget deficit, Fritz Hollings has left an indelible mark on our nation in the areas of health care, environmental protection, resource conservation, technology development, job creation, transportation security, and law enforcement, to name a few.

Immediately after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America, Senator Hollings worked to protect the safety of our traveling public by authoring the Aviation Security Act which created the Transportation Security Administration. Similarly, recognizing that America's ports and borders were our Nation's weak security links, Senator Hollings championed legislation to increase security at America's ports.

As the father of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Senator Hollings recognized the extent to which the ocean environment sustains us--from human uses in commerce and recreation to being the original cradle of life on our planet. He knew the importance of taking appropriate steps to be responsible stewards of this rich, yet fragile resource.

His oceans legacy includes authorship of the National Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which established Federal policy for protecting coastal areas, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which also became the model for other countries, for the protection of dolphins, sea otters and other mammals. In a continuing effort to do what is best for our ocean environment, Senator Hollings created the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in 2000, to review the accomplishments of the last 30 years, and recommend actions for the future. Upon the issuance of the report, Senator Hollings laid the groundwork for legislation to adopt the recommendations of the Ocean Commission. I am the proud cosponsor of two of those measures, S. 2647, the Fritz Hollings National Ocean Policy and Leadership Act, and S. 2648, the Ocean Research Coordination and Advancement Act.

Beyond the oceans, Senator Hollings worked to make our communities and schools safer, through programs such as Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, that put more than 100,000 police officers on the streets in 13,000 communities across the country. The COPS program is also the largest source of dedicated funding for interoperable communications for public safety officers.

Senator Hollings brought competition to the telecommunications arena which resulted in new services to consumers at affordable rates.

I will miss Senator Hollings' wisdom, vision, and wit, but mostly his friendship.

I wish Fritz and his wife Peatsy a fond aloha.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in tribute to Senator Ernest ``Fritz'' Hollings. I will miss my good friend from South Carolina who in 2003, at the age of 81, finally became his State's senior Senator--after 36 years as a junior Senator.

In addition to being remembered as a coauthor of the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings legislation that cut tens of billions of dollars from the Federal budget deficit, Fritz Hollings has left an indelible mark on our Nation in the areas of health care, environmental protection, resource conservation, technology development, job creation, transportation security, and law enforcement, to name a few.

Immediately after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America,

Senator Hollings worked to protect the safety of our traveling public by authoring the Aviation Security Act which created the Transportation Security Administration. Similarly, recognizing that America's ports and borders were our Nation's weak security links, Senator Hollings championed legislation to increase security at America's ports.

As the father of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Senator Hollings recognized the extent to which the ocean environment sustains us--from human uses in commerce and recreation to being the original cradle of life on our planet. He knew the importance of taking appropriate steps to be responsible stewards of this rich, yet fragile resource.

His oceans legacy includes authorship of the National Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which established Federal policy for protecting coastal areas, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which also became the model for other countries, for the protection of dolphins, sea otters and other mammals. In a continuing effort to do what is best for our ocean environment, Senator Hollings created the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in 2000, to review the accomplishments of the last 30 years, and recommend actions for the future. Upon the issuance of the report, Senator Hollings laid the groundwork for legislation to adopt the recommendations of the Ocean Commission. I am the proud cosponsor of two of those measures, S. 2647, the Fritz Hollings National Ocean Policy and Leadership Act, and S. 2648, the Ocean Research Coordination and Advancement Act.

Beyond the oceans, Senator Hollings worked to make our communities and schools safer, through programs such as Community Oriented Policing Services--COPS--that put more than 100,000 police officers on the streets in 13,000 communities across the country. The COPS program is also the largest source of dedicated funding for interoperable communications for public safety officers.

Senator Hollings brought competition to the telecommunications arena which resulted in new services to consumers at affordable rates.

I will miss Senator Hollings' wisdom, vision, and wit, but, most of all, his friendship.

I wish Fritz and his wife Peatsy a fond Aloha.

don nickles

Mr. President, I rise in support of my bill, S. 2489, the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act of 2004, which is being considered by the Senate. This bill which was reported unanimously from the Commerce Committee, addresses the nearly 90 percent of the U.S. Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone that remain unmapped by modern technologies. I am pleased to be joined by my friends and colleagues, Senators Ted Stevens, Fritz Hollings, Judd Gregg, Olympia Snowe, Trent Lott, John Breaux, Frank Lautenberg, and Dan Akaka, who are cosponsors of the bill.

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, 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.

The recent draft report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has highlighted the urgent need to modernize, improve, expand, and integrate federal mapping efforts to improve navigation, safety and resource management decision making. 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 sensitive ecosystems, and devising appropriate mitigation plans. Managers of living marine resource can also gauge where and how best to focus their efforts to restore essential marine habitats.

My bill 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 will also establish national ocean and coastal mapping 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 am extremely proud to be the author of this legislation, and hope you will join me in supporting enactment of the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act of 2004. This bill will provide the United States with the programs and resources necessary to improve maritime commerce and national security, and develop healthy coastal communities across the Nation.

Mr. President, I am extremely grateful for those reassuring words of my distinguished friend from Arizona and my distinguished friend from New Mexico. We look forward to working with them next year on this most important bill, a bill for the native Hawaiians.

Mr. President, I want to commend the Senators from Idaho and California for their comments, and to associate myself with their discussion.

The depth of my concern with the subject of Japan's cooperation with the U.S. on security matters goes very deep. I was privileged to have served my country during World War II, and I was as proud as any American with the victory we achieved over Japan. However, I am much more proud of the events that have occurred since that war--events that have changed two former enemies into the closest of allies.

Mr. President, the post-war actions of these two former adversaries is one of history's most shining moments. America demanded and received Japan's unconditional surrender. America also insisted on compensation, and that was accomplished by the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. Our country, however, also recognized that Japan is a great nation, and we dedicated ourselves to helping restore its place in the world. Thus, instead of the kind of ``armistice'' or ``cold peace'' settlement that only preserves hostility and resentment, both nations worked hard to transcend their recent past and build a true alliance.

As Americans, we have seen this before. Our Nation's first enemy, Britain, is now one of our very closest allies. It is inspiring that Japan and the U.S. have accomplished a similar achievement and created a truly strong and lasting alliance. The facts that Senators Feinstein and Craig put before us only confirm how strong that alliance is.

Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering the resolution which responds to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to revamp the congressional oversight process for intelligence and homeland security. I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about this matter.

The Commission recommended two options for Congress to consider regarding intelligence oversight. First, they suggested that the Congress could create a joint bicameral committee modeled after the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, as they said, to streamline the congressional review over intelligence functions. They supported this idea because they believe we need to have a very powerful Intelligence Committee which can stand up to the administration and speak authoritatively for the Congress. I understand there is virtually no support within the Senate for this suggestion.

The other alternative suggested by the Commission was to give the Intelligence Committees the authority to appropriate funds, and this is the matter now being discussed. The Intelligence Committee--some of the members--believes the inability to appropriate funds allows the administration to play the Intelligence Committee off against the Appropriations Committee. They argue this weakens congressional oversight. My colleagues are undoubtedly aware that granting an authorization committee such authority would be unprecedented in modern times.

Chairman Stevens and I were surprised that neither one of us was contacted by the members of the 9/11 Commission as they conducted their review

and prepared their recommendations. We were shocked that, without even consulting us or our House counterparts on the Appropriations Committee, they would recommend that Congress eliminate our role in intelligence oversight. As such, I cannot offer any personal explanation for the Commission's recommendation.

Furthermore, their report provides scant explanation why they believe the Appropriations Committee should be excluded from its mission to fund all Federal agencies. In fact, there is not a single word in the 9/11 Commission's report to suggest that the appropriations subcommittee was at fault in its oversight of the intelligence budget. Never once were we accused of that shortfall.

I believe the Intelligence Committee's role in spending authority is already powerful enough without any new authority. Under the National Security Act of 1947, as amended by section 504, the intelligence community cannot spend appropriated funds unless the funds are specifically authorized. Now, I think this is worth repeating. The intelligence community cannot spend appropriated funds unless the funds are specifically authorized. As such, the Select Intelligence Committee already has more authority than any standing committee.

Let me be clear about what that means. If the Appropriations Committee were to fund programs that were not included in the annual intelligence authorization bill, the appropriated funding for those programs cannot and will not be spent by the executive branch.

This authority is virtually unheard of in other budget functions. The authority was granted to the Intelligence Committee to ensure that the executive branch could not use the wide latitude provided in appropriations law to circumvent the will of the Congress. Appropriations acts are written with broad authority to hide the amounts for classified programs in large lump sums. This ensures that the amounts for these programs remain undisclosed. As such, the limits on spending for classified programs are very broad. The authorization requirement ensures that both committees agree on how much should be spent to provide a better check on the administration.

More important, I believe the idea of centralizing congressional oversight is not only a bad idea, it could be dangerous to the Nation. In all areas of Government, except intelligence, our system requires and allows public scrutiny. The media, nongovernment organizations, and even lobbyists all provide information and insight to Members of Congress on everything except intelligence.

Congress needs to have a system of checks and balances internal to the legislative branch because there are no other checks. We all remember Iran-Contra, which was able to go unchecked even though multiple committees had some degree of intelligence oversight. What chance would we have of uncovering that type of abuse if only one committee were examining intelligence matters?

We know there have been other abuses by the intelligence community. I remember a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee expressing outrage to discover that the National Reconnaissance Office was spending significantly more money to build a new headquarters than the chairman was aware. I recall how Chairman Stevens uncovered a slush fund in the same agency that had been accumulating outside of the knowledge of the Congress.

Do any of my colleagues really believe that having only one committee perform oversight of the intelligence community's budget will provide more effective oversight?

In addition, a single committee overseeing intelligence for the Senate would create a powerful czar. Little opportunity would exist for meaningful debate on intelligence budgets because so few Members would be aware of the details of intelligence matters. Of equal concern, a more powerful chairman could end up being co-opted or at least overly influenced by the intelligence community and potentially lose objectivity. The Senate would be at his or her mercy with little outside scrutiny. That is not an appropriate or effective form of oversight for the Congress.

Having a few committees cleared for intelligence programs, such as Armed Services, Appropriations, and Intelligence, and each with some role in determining how resources are provided would ensure that fewer bad ideas get legislated, and it would also create more effective oversight and competitive analysis by the Congress.

I also note that maintaining the link to the Appropriations Committee is beneficial to the intelligence community. Intelligence funding is protected by inclusion under the Appropriations Committee. By combining all appropriations resources, the committee has historically solved many intelligence shortfalls.

If the Appropriations Committee is removed from intelligence matters, it will be less likely to support intelligence requirements. First, the committee will not be as knowledgeable of intelligence needs. Second, it is human nature for chairmen and ranking members to care about the programs over which they have jurisdiction. If they do not have some oversight over intelligence programs, they will not have the link to the intelligence providers or necessarily the desire to help.

The Intelligence Committee would be subject to 302 budget reductions and other general reductions levied against all committees by the Budget Committee. To believe that they would be held harmless in across-the-board cuts or other cutbacks I think is very naive. Their funding level is more likely to be decreased than increased.

Linking Defense and Intelligence is critical. DOD cannot operate without good intelligence. The Defense Subcommittee has ensured that intelligence resources support the needs of the warfighter. Today, the Defense Subcommittee reviews the recommendations of both the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. The Appropriations Committee can minimize redundancies and make sure that the needs of both Defense and Intelligence are met. Separating Defense from Intelligence through the creation of an all-powerful Intelligence Committee would hurt oversight and hurt the community they hope to help.

In recent testimony before the House Intelligence Committee former Deputy Defense Secretary, Defense Comptroller, and staffer to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Dr. John Hamre stated that the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees worry too much about input and not enough about output.

His counsel was to let the Appropriations Committee worry about input in the budget process, to determine what we should spend money on and let the authorizing committees worry about how the agencies are performing with these resources. He noted that the authorizing committees spend far too much time on the budget and therefore had insufficient time for oversight. I am pleased that the leadership has decided to recommend creating an Intelligence subcommittee on oversight to highlight its importance.

Since the Civil War it has been the mission of the Appropriations Committee to balance needs among competing priorities. While the 9/11 tragedy exposed problems with intelligence oversight, it did not expose problems with the appropriations process for intelligence. Certainly, nothing was uncovered that would be resolved by giving the Intelligence Committee the authority to appropriate funds.

The intelligence budget should not be considered in a vacuum. It needs to be considered in conjunction with the Defense budget. While some speculate we can simply separate national intelligence from military intelligence, it is not that simple. Many programs have both national and military, strategic or tactical, components. Military personnel provide a large proportion of the intelligence community workforce. The Defense Department and Intelligence Community both need to support maintaining this relationship and benefit from doing so. It should remain the Appropriations Committee's responsibility to ensure that the needs of both defense and intelligence are met.

The Collins-Lieberman bill that the Senate adopted yesterday recognizes the need for maintaining a close working relationship between DoD and intelligence. Creating an Intelligence Committee that could separate itself from all the other actors in the intelligence support arena would be, quite simply, a colossal mistake.

Some of our colleagues think that the Congress needs to reorganize dramatically to meet the challenges of the 21st century. There are also those that believe that the Intelligence Committee needs to be stronger. The resolution that has been offered by the leadership in fact will provide some significant enhancements to the authority of the Intelligence Committee which will hopefully improve oversight. However, I believe the real key to better oversight is for our authorizing committees to focus on outputs as Dr. Hamre noted and for the Appropriations Committee to focus an allocating resources as efficiently and effectively as possible.

I was the first chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have great regard for the work of that committee and a great fondness for its chairman and vice chairman. I have also served on the Appropriations Committee for the past 30 years. I understand the critical role that this committee plays in our Nation's security both in defense and intelligence. I can say with no false modesty that the work that Chairman Stevens and the committee does in overseeing the intelligence budget with the assistance of our very experienced professional staff is unmatched anywhere in Congress.

As powerful as the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was, it did not control appropriations. Maintaining Appropriations Committee control over funding would preserve a check on unlimited spending by an authorizing committee and would allow at least one other committee to have some review of Intelligence matters. I for one do not think that this is sufficient oversight, but it is clearly the minimum that the Senate should accept.

This is a very important matter. Senator Reid and Senator McConnell have spent the past 3 weeks deliberating on this issue. They have consulted with many Members who have competing interests in this arena. The resolution they propose represents a compromise that balances these many and varied views. I cannot say I am completely happy with their recommendation, but I can say this: Their recommendation is far superior to the alternative that is being proposed by the Senator from Arizona.

I urge all my colleagues to vote to support the bipartisan leadership and defeat the McCain amendment.

Twenty minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from Alaska in opposition to this amendment to transfer jurisdiction over the TSA to the soon-to-be renamed Governmental Affairs Committee.

As noted by Senator Stevens, this amendment would effectively strip the Commerce Committee of its ability to oversee and coordinate the safety and security needs of our Nation's transportation system. To consider security in a vacuum, without understanding the impacts of security policy on the safety and operations of the mode of transportation, could give rise to unrealistic, contradictory, and counterproductive policies.

The McCain amendment would sever issues and responsibilities that have enabled the Commerce Committee to craft and enact two of the most significant transportation security measures this body has adopted since the 9/11, 2001 attack on our Nation.

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act created the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, mandated the Federal takeover of aviation security functions, and created a fee to pay for the new responsibilities.

The Maritime Transportation Security Act created a new regime for maritime security within the TSA and the U.S. Coast Guard.

The Commerce Committee also successfully completed a conference with the House earlier this year on a second port security bill, the Coast Guard and Maritime Security Act.

These efforts were successful because of the Commerce Committee's understanding of the transportation industry, and the integral link between security, safety, and operations.

The committee has worked for more than a decade to improve transportation security and has had to deal with the inertia of the Federal Government as well as fight entrenched interests to change the way we secure the transportation system.

As far back as 1996, attempts were made to transfer security functions from the airlines to the Federal Government. Similarly, the port security act was initiated prior to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The 9/11 attacks created sufficient public pressure to fundamentally change the way the Federal Government secured our aviation system and the ports.

The problems we are having in improving security are not the result of an outdated committee system; they are the result of ``growing pains'' of a newly created department with insufficient resources to fulfill its responsibilities.

The 9/11 Commission made many recommendations. However, the recommendations with respect to the transportation sector were very general, with no specifics. An effective approach would require taking operational needs of transportation systems, the funding streams for these systems, the economics of the industries, and the safety regulatory framework that is so crucial to protecting our citizens.

In setting transportation security policy, all of these aspects come into play: safety regulations imposed by the Department of Transportation, safety regulations and recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board, and the need to efficiently move passengers and cargo.

For example, the Commerce Committee developed legislation to strengthen cockpit doors based on its jurisdictional aviation funding programs, the FAA's certification approval process, and aviation system safety. We had working knowledge of aircraft structure and the carrier maintenance schedules.

The Commerce Committee was able to develop funding streams for the installation of another explosive detection system because of the committee's jurisdiction over airport funding programs and the use of the airport and airways trust fund.

Similarly, the authorization for pilots to carry guns required an understanding of a wide variety of issues, including structural integrity of the aircraft, training programs, and the pilot licensing process.

For example, if you left it up to a gun merchant or gun expert, he might say, give the pilots a .45. If you fired a .45 in one of those aircraft, it will blow the plane apart under the pressure of the atmosphere. So we have some sort of background and knowledge about aircraft structure. So the pilots would be carrying a smaller caliber pistol, something that will not put the aircraft into an explosive position.

You cannot separate safety considerations, security considerations, and the operational theory. Keep in mind that when we passed the Airport Security Act, we initiated a user fee system, a system where the beneficiaries, if you want to call them that, the airlines, pay a fee for the metal detectors, pay a fee for the x ray machines, pay a fee for the personnel. They have been paying $14 million per year.

If you separate this function to another organization that will have no knowledge about the economics involved in the airlines, not realizing that the airlines are now on the verge of bankruptcy, who knows, we may really put them out of business. And the major mission of our airlines is to

carry passengers, to carry on the mobility of the citizens of the United States.

Transportation security decisions cannot be separated from the safety and operational concerns. The Senate leadership, tasked with the mission of developing a reorganization plan, recognized this vital link. That is why the leadership amendment keeps matters relating to the Coast Guard and the transportation security within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee.

Even the Department of Homeland Security recognizes that security decisions can have safety and operational ramifications. This link is embodied in a recent memorandum of understanding between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation.

Transportation security and safety are so intertwined that separating them, as the McCain amendment would do, could do harm rather than benefit our transportation system.

After we created the Transportation Security Administration, long before we had a Department of Homeland Security, the President put in charge a tough law enforcement official who knew little about transportation. He did not last long because he knew only one side of the equation. He was succeeded by Admiral Loy who understood not only the balance between safety and security but the need to support policies and positions to maintain our safety needs while meeting our security challenges.

Those tasked with the responsibilities of securing our transportation system must take into account the intricacy of the operations of the system, from safety standards to mock in place realities. The two cannot be separated. Without such context, security decisions will be made in a vacuum that at best might produce misguidance and extraneous efforts and at worst could triple the transportation modes that ensure the free flow of commerce and traffic upon which our Nation has been built.

Competition, safety, and security are interrelated and inseparable aspects of interstate transportation, and each element significantly impacts a carrier's operation.

I realize this amendment does not discuss the Coast Guard, so I will not discuss that matter at this moment.

This is not a debate about protecting turf. It is a debate about the best way to do the job our Nation has entrusted to us. It is about our role in transportation safety and security and our ability to craft effective and timely solutions.

Although the report said Congress should create a single board of review for homeland security, I feel certain the commission did not intend that such a consolidation would result in more harm than good. Each of us must look at what is in the best interest of our Nation. Senators Reid and McConnell have done that. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the McCain amendment.

Finally, it has been said the homeland security proposal submitted by the leadership of the Senate did not change the status quo. It recommends, as this resolution will point out, that the new homeland security and governmental affairs committee have sole jurisdiction of three of the four directorates in the Department of Homeland Security: directorate of information analysis, science and technology programs under the under secretary, and emergency preparedness and response director.

Yes, we have tried our best to make a change but not at the expense of a good, efficient, safe, and profitable transportation system.

Mr. President, I commend military certified registered nurse anesthetists, CRNAs. CRNAs are advanced practice nurses who administer anesthesia. Today, CRNAs administer approximately 65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year for all types of surgical cases in the United States.

Nurse anesthetists have been the principal anesthesia providers in combat areas in every war in which the United States has been engaged since World War I. In World War II, there were 17 nurse anesthetists to every 1 physician anesthetist. In Vietnam, the ratio of CRNAs to physician anesthetists was approximately 3 to 1. During the Panama strike authorized in 1989, only CRNAs were sent with the fighting forces. In addition, the vast majority of anesthesia providers deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom has been CRNAs. Nurse anesthetists are again carrying the load by providing 80 percent of the anesthesia requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan. We rely heavily on CRNAs to accomplish wartime missions and our need for their services will only increase in the future.

In all of the uniformed services, maintaining adequate numbers of Active Duty and Reserve CRNAs is of utmost concern. For several years, the number of CRNAs serving on active duty has fallen somewhat short of the number authorized by the Department of Defense. This lag in recruitment has been further exacerbated by a strong demand for CRNAs in both the public and private sectors. One reason the military has difficulty retaining CRNAs is that a large pay gap exists between annual civilian salaries and military pay.

I am deeply concerned about retention of these CRNAs, particularly in the Army Nurse Corps. It has come to my attention that within the next 3 years, the Army Nurse Corps could lose up to 50 percent of its current complement of CRNAs. A recent survey of Army CRNAs revealed that despite overall satisfaction with their anesthesia practice, dissatisfaction with pay and frequent deployments are the primary reasons for leaving active duty.

One strategy that is proving effective in increasing overall satisfaction is the Army Surgeon General's 180-day rotation policy. I urge continuation of this policy. However, this is not enough to ensure that we meet our mission. I am quite certain that another remedy to prevent further losses would be an across-the-board increase in incentive speciality pay for all CRNAs, regardless of Active-Duty service obligation. I trust that the Department of Defense is also concerned and actively pursuing measures to address this very important issue.